Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD86618 Case Number: LCR10855 Section / Act: S67 Parties: DUBLIN AIRPORT RESTAURANT - and - ITGWU |
Claim on behalf of four barmen for compensation for loss of earnings due to the introduction of new work rosters.
Recommendation:
6. The Court finds as a matter of fact that the agreement on the
24th round included compensation for the change in rosters in
March, 1984. The Court does not therefore recommend in favour of
the claim.
Division: Mr Fitzgerald Mr Heffernan Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD86618 THE LABOUR COURT LCR10855
CC86846 INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR10855
Parties: DUBLIN AIRPORT RESTAURANTS LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATED UNION OF EMPLOYERS)
and
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
Subject:
1. Claim on behalf of four barmen for compensation for loss of
earnings due to the introduction of new work rosters.
Background:
2. The Company took over responsibility for the catering services
of Dublin Airport in October, 1983. In August, 1983, agreement
was reached between the Union, the Company, and Aer Rianta on the
safeguarding of the pay and conditions of employment enjoyed by
the former Aer Rianta catering staff who had accepted employment
in Dublin Airport Restaurants Limited (copy of agreement submitted
to the Court). After an initial familiarisation period the
Company commenced negotiations with the staffs concerned regarding
the matter of changes in rosters and work practices. As a result
of these negotiations revised rosters came into operation in
March, 1984.
3. The Union's claim for the 24th wage round was served in June,
1984, and included a claim for two extra days' annual leave. In
December, 1984, the Union advised Management that it would be
seeking compensation for change of rosters separate from any
discussions on the 24th round. The Company's offer on the 24th
round (made in December) included an extra two days annual leave
for all ex Aer Rianta staff, as a "once off" concession. This was
to be compensation for loss of earnings following the roster
changes. The Union disputes that this compensation included the
barmen and in February, 1985, it served a claim for compensation
of #1,500 (later increased to #2,000) for each barman involved in
the change of roster. Despite several local level meetings, no
agreement could be reached and, on the 12th May, 1986, the Union
referred the matter to the conciliation service of the Labour
Court. No basis for agreement could be reached at a conciliation
conference on the 24th July, and the matter was referred to the
Labour Court for investigation and recommendation. A Court
hearing took place on the 22nd October, 1986, the earliest date
suitable to the parties.
Union's arguments:
4. (a) The change in rosters resulted in a loss of earnings
for the bar staff and was in breach of the agreement
which the Union had with both the Company and Aer
Rianta.
(b) Aer Rianta's letter to the Union in March, 1983, stated
that annual leave and other general conditions of
employment would be retained. The claimants'
interpretation of this was that they would not suffer a
financial loss by agreeing to accept the offer of
employment with Dublin Airport Restaurants. At that
time the four claimants were working rostered overtime
which they considered to be a condition of employment.
(c) The Union accepts that some minor changes might have
had to occur but it did not envisage any loss of
earnings. Furthermore, it certainly did not accept two
days' annual leave as a once off compensation for the
financial loss. It has been the practice in the past
that where changes in conditions of employment were
negotiated for any section of Aer Rianta staff these
changes would be implemented across the board and it
was in this vein that the barmen were granted the two
days' extra annual leave in 1984. It must also be
emphasised that the shop steward has no authority to
sign agreements, only the Union official can do this.
(d) The Union sought to have the issue of compensation kept
separate from discussions of the 24th wage round
(details supplied). The Company accepted this by
negotiating on the reorganisation proposals during
February, 1985. The Company rejected the claim for
#1,500 per man on the grounds that the loss involved
only amounted to 4.50 hours over four months and that
overtime would be available during the Summer.
(e) Despite Management's predictions, there was very little
overtime available during the Summer periods of 1985
and 1986, and when the reorganisation took place within
the Company in September, 1985, the bar staff was
reduced by seven. Some were made redundant while
others went back into the employment of Aer Rianta.
The savings to the Company by this reorganisation in
the bar area alone would be approximately #72,000 per
annum. Given this saving to the Company, the Union
believes that its claim for #2,000 compensation for
each barman is a reasonable one and requests the Court
to find in its favour.
Company's arguments:
5. (i) The Union has stated that the bar staff had not been
represented at the meetings which took place concerning
the changing of rosters. Management, however, is of
the view that all staff had been affected by changes in
rosters in March, 1984, and that these changes had
formed part of discussions which took place between the
Company and the House Committee in December, 1984.
Furthermore, specific compensation was agreed with the
House Committee concerning the changes which had taken
place in March, 1984, and this was applied to all staff
including the claimants.
(ii) Shortly after taking over the catering services in
Dublin Airport, Management discovered that the general
practice was that negotiations normally took place with
the House Committee and that it at its own discretion
decided whether or not to have the Union present. At
no time was Management ever aware that the House
Committee did not represent any particular group of
staff within the catering services in the Airport and
the Union cannot now argue that any particular group
were excluded from these negotiations. Furthermore,
both the staff and the Union were aware that the
negotiations were taking place.
(iii) In response to the claim that the shop steward had no
authority to negotiate on behalf of anybody except the
specific group he represented, Management produced
copies of agreements which had been reached between the
shop steward and Management concerning other workers
who were employed in the Airport and who did not work
in his area.
(iv) The Union cannot now suggest that the shop steward did
not have authority to make agreements on behalf of the
workers concerned as it is clear that he had the full
authority and support of the staff to enter into such
negotiation. Furthermore, negotiations under the 24th
round and the negotiations on the changes in rosters
took place on the same basis, i.e., in the presence of
the House Committee and shop stewards.
RECOMMENDATION:
6. The Court finds as a matter of fact that the agreement on the
24th round included compensation for the change in rosters in
March, 1984. The Court does not therefore recommend in favour of
the claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John M. Horgan
________________________________
Chairman.
4th December, 1986.
D.H./J.C.