Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD86792 Case Number: LCR10861 Section / Act: S67 Parties: ROYAL DUBLIN HOTEL - and - ITGWU |
Claim on behalf of approximately 30 workers for the payment of a Sunday attendance premium, referred to as 'Sunday Equivalent'.
Recommendation:
5. On the basis of the evidence presented, the Court is of the
view that the 1978 Agreement provided for the incorporation of
Sunday equivalent payments into the new pay rates which were to
apply following the conclusion of that Agreement. Accordingly,
the Court does not recommend concession of the claim.
Division: Mr Fitzgerald Mr Heffernan Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD86792 THE LABOUR COURT LCR10861
CC86837 INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
RECOMMENDATION NO. 10861
PARTIES: ROYAL DUBLIN HOTEL
(Represented by the Federated Union of Employers)
and
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
Subject:
1. Claim on behalf of approximately 30 workers for the payment of
a Sunday attendance premium, referred to as 'Sunday Equivalent'.
Background:
2. The Hotel has not operated a service charge since the
introduction of an agreement in 1978. The 1978 agreement also
established new basic pay rates in the Hotel and it is this aspect
of the agreement which has given rise to the present dispute. The
Company contends that the terms of the agreement in relation to
pay provided for the incorporation into the basic rate of a Sunday
allowance - referred to as 'Sunday Equivalent' - which was paid up
to then to those employees who have every second Sunday attendance
liability. The Union denies that the 'Sunday Equivalent' was
incorporated into the basic rate under the 1978 agreement and
accordingly served a claim on the Company for the payment of this
allowance (the current rate of which the Union contends is 10% of
the basic rate) in addition to basic pay. The Company rejected
the claim and as no agreement could be reached at local level the
matter was referred, on 8th May, 1986 to the conciliation service
of the Labour Court. A conciliation conference, held on 16th
July, 1986, failed to resolve the dispute and subsequently the
parties referred it to the Labour Court for investigation and
recommendation. The Court investigated the dispute on 10th
November, 1986.
Union's arguments:
3. (i) The agreement in 1978 (details supplied to the Court)
provided for the payment of lump sums in respect of
loss of service charge. The agreement also provided
for the notification to customers of the removal of
the service charge; the maintenance of agreed
staffing levels and the introduction of the mortality
benefit then prevailing in the hotel industry. It was
agreed that all other conditions of employment would
continue. Also, in a letter received by the Union
from the Hotel's General Manager in January, 1978,
(details supplied to the Court) the new wage structure
was outlined which set out the 'Sunday Equivalent'
premium to be paid to the staff. (This premium has,
since 1980, been increased to 10% of basic pay in the
Dublin area). The existence therefore, of the Sunday
equivalent as part of the new wage structure
introduced in 1978 in the Hotel cannot be denied.
(ii) The non-payment of the Sunday equivalent since 1978
has been lost sight of until recently due to the
filling of full-time jobs in the Hotel with part-time
seasonal and casual workers by the Company and to the
comparatively high turn-over of staff in the Hotel.
In addition, there have been a number of management
changes over the years in the Hotel.
(iii) The Hotel operates an obscure style of personnel
management which has created great difficulty for the
Union in processing this claim which has been on-going
for a considerable length of time (details supplied to
the Court).
(iv) Basic rates in 1978 were only in line with those of
other hotels in Dublin and that is still the current
position. Therefore, the Sunday equivalent could not
be included in the basic rates of the workers
concerned, given that all subsequent pay increases
have been applied to the basic rates.
(v) The Company's attitude would appear to be that by
pruning the staff in existence in 1978 and replacing
them with temporary workers, the question of the
Sunday equivalent would not be raised. In particular
the Company fears the retrospective consequences which
would arise in relation to the payment of the Sunday
equivalent.
(vi) In all the circumstances the Union's claim for the
application of a weekly 10% premium to those workers
who have an every second Sunday attendance liability
should be conceded.
Company's arguments:
4. (a) An agreement concluded between the Hotel and the Union
in January, 1978, provided for the introduction of new
rates of pay inclusive of Sunday equivalent payments
and these were actually paid by the Hotel.
(b) A management representative involved in the 1977/78
negotiations has confirmed in writing his
understanding of the agreement that was reached at
that time (details supplied to the Court). This
statement supports the Company's contention that
Sunday equivalent is included in the basic rates of
pay.
(c) The Company has been advised that the requirement to
incorporate Sunday equivalent into basic pay arose
from a direct claim by the Union to have this as a
feature of the agreement. Even though there was a
cost factor involved in conceding this point it was
found to be acceptable to the Company.
(d) The Hotel finds it inconceivable that an error occured
in the application of the 1978 agreement and that this
error went unobserved to the previous Branch
Secretary, who negotiated the agreement, and all the
Union members employed in the Hotel.
(e) The Hotel has fully discharged its obligations under
the terms of the 1978 agreement. Accordingly, the
Union's claim should be rejected.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. On the basis of the evidence presented, the Court is of the
view that the 1978 Agreement provided for the incorporation of
Sunday equivalent payments into the new pay rates which were to
apply following the conclusion of that Agreement. Accordingly,
the Court does not recommend concession of the claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
18th December, 1986 Nicholas Fitzgerald
T.McC./P.W. Deputy Chairman