Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD86798 Case Number: LCR10862 Section / Act: S67 Parties: DUBLIN CINEMA GROUP - and - ITGWU |
Claim on behalf of an usher/cleaner for the payment of an acting-up allowance.
Recommendation:
6. The Court, having considered the submissions made by the
parties, recommends concession of the Union's claim.
Division: Mr Fitzgerald Mr Shiel Mr Devine
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD86798 THE LABOUR COURT LCR10862
CC861350 INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
RECOMMENDATION NO. 10862
PARTIES: DUBLIN CINEMA GROUP
and
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
Subject:
1. Claim on behalf of an usher/cleaner for the payment of an
acting-up allowance.
Background:
2. The Group operates three Dublin cinemas - the Savoy, Screen
and Odeon. The worker involved in this claim is employed in the
Savoy cinema as an usher/cleaner.
3. The Union says that the worker, when filling the post of
assistant chief usher for a six week period, should have been paid
an acting-up allowance of #4 per week in accordance with custom
and practice in the industry and as provided for in clause 29 of
the Company/Union house agreement. The Company however refused to
pay the worker the payment in question on the basis of Clause 12
of a 1975 productivity/rationalisation agreement which, it says,
rationalised all categories of usher and chief cleaner into a new
classification of usher/cleaner and for which a special weekly
increase of #3 was paid to each worker affected by this clause in
addition to a 16% increase for acceptance of the overall
agreement. The Union rejects the Company's contention that the
grades of usher referred to were abolished under the terms of the
1975 agreement and accordingly, served a claim on the Company for
the payment of the acting-up allowance to the worker concerned for
the period in question. The claim was rejected by the Company and
as no agreement could be reached at local level the matter was
referred, on 12th August, 1986, to the conciliation service of the
Labour Court. A conciliation conference, held on 10th October,
1986 (the earliest date suitable to the Union) failed to resolve
the matter and the claim was referred to the Labour Court for
investigation and recommendation. The Court investigated the
dispute on 14th November, 1986.
Union's arguments:
4. (i) A well established custom and practice in the industry
provides that in the absence of any of the supervisory
staff the next most senior member of staff fills the
position on an acting basis and is paid the
appropriate rate. This is also provided for in Clause
29 of the Company/Union agreement. In this case the
assistant chief usher was absent on sick leave for
some time and his position was filled by the most
senior man who was paid the appropriate rate. However
when this man went on holidays the worker concerned
took over the responsibilities of the post but was not
paid the appropriate rate. This is unacceptable to
the Union and is in breach of clause 29 of the
Company/Union agreement.
(ii) The Company contends that the position of assistant
chief usher has not existed since the introduction of
the 1975 productivity agreement. This is not so. In
the 13 years since the agreement the post of assistant
chief usher has existed with the person occupying the
post receiving the appropriate rate and performing the
appropriate duties. Furthermore, in his absence the
position has always been filled by the next most
senior worker.
(iii) In negotiations on this claim the Company questioned
the whole principle of acting-up allowances. If such
allowances were to be abolished workers would not be
prepared to take on extra responsibilities in the
absence of supervisory staff.
(iv) In the interest of future good industrial relations in
the Company the Union's claim should be conceded and
the existing custom and practice maintained.
Company's arguments:
5. (a) In serving this claim the Union is seeking formal
recognition of certain job classifications which have
been the subject of an 1975 rationalisation agreement
between the Company and Union, and is attempting to
revive certain job classifications which the Union,
after extensive and long negotiations, agreed to
surrender.
(b) Clause 12 of the 1975 agreement provides for the
rationalisation of categories previously known as
chief usher, assistant chief usher, usher and chief
cleaner, into a new classification of usher-cleaner
(copy of agreement supplied to the Court). The
Company, in addition to the 16% increase in return for
the Union's concessions, specifically agreed to make a
special payment of #3 to employees affected by this
particular clause. The schedules which specifically
exclude the old categories have formed the basis of
wage increases since the agreement.
(c) In recognition of the position of employees whose
status has been affected by the implementation of the
agreement, the Company, without prejudice to the
enforcibility and conclusiveness of the agreement, has
permitted the continuance of certain preferential
wages rates. The Company concedes, in view of the
spirit of the agreement, that the "usher/cleaners"
will be entitled to acting-up money to "chief-usher"
rate during holidays, since these categories are
specifically contained in the agreement. However, the
Company does not concede acting-up money to categories
which do not exist and are specifically excluded from
the agreement.
(d) In support of its claim the Union refers to certain
work practices. However, the Company submits that
custom and practice should not prevail on matters
which are dealt with specifically in the 1975
agreement. In this respect, the agreement contains
the following paragraph:-
"This Agreement embraces all of the items between
the Company and Union during the course of
negotiations. It also includes the working
conditions being enjoyed by the cinema employees at
present. Where necessary, "custom and practice"
will prevail on matters which are not specifically
referred to in this Report".
(e) In view of the provisions of the 1975 agreement the
Union's claim should be rejected.
RECOMMENDATION:
6. The Court, having considered the submissions made by the
parties, recommends concession of the Union's claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
16th December, 1986 Nicholas Fitzgerald
T.McC./P. Deputy Chairman