Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD86917 Case Number: LCR10987 Section / Act: S67 Parties: TARA TOWERS HOTEL - and - ITGWU |
Claim for the back payment of Service Pay.
Recommendation:
7. It appears to the Court that the rates of pay and conditions
of employment of the Head Chef and the 2nd Head Chef are
negotiated on an individual basis without regard to the Union
rates and without specific reference to Service Pay. The Court
does not, therefore, recommend concession of the claim in respect
of these workers.
In respect of Chefs, by the same token, the rates are negotiated
by reference to Union rates to which Service Pay is traditionally
added. As there was no specific agreement not to pay Service Pay,
as provided for in the Union agreement, the Court recommends
concession of the claim.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John M Horgan
10th February, 1987 ---------------
T O'M/U.S. Chairman
Division: CHAIRMAN Mr McHenry Mr Devine
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD86917 THE LABOUR COURT LCR10987
CC861468 INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR10987
Parties: THE TARA TOWERS HOTEL
(Represented by the Federated Union of Employers)
and
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
Subject:
1. Claim for the back payment of Service Pay.
Background:
2. The Company, which has been in business since 1969, has a
Service Pay scheme which provides weekly payments to each worker
with five completed years' service. The payment is 25p per week
for each five years of service up to a maximum of #1 per week
after twenty years' service. The Agreement under which this
payment is made provided for payment to eligible workers since
1974. The Union is claiming, on behalf of two Head Chefs and five
Chefs, the payments of Service Pay with the inclusion of back pay.
3. In May 1986 the Union lodged a claim that payment of Service
Pay be made to some workers who had not been included in the
scheme. The Company conceded the Union's claim in respect of all
workers apart from the workers here concerned. The Union then
claimed that they should also be included. The Company rejected
the claim.
4. There was no agreement reached at local level negotiations and
on 4th September, 1986 the matter was referred to the conciliation
service of the Labour Court. A conciliation conference was held
on 29th October, 1986 but no agreement was reached. On 11th
November, 1986 the case was referred to the Court for
investigation and recommendation. A Labour Court hearing was held
on 12th January, 1987.
Union's arguments:
5. (i) The company admitted that through error it did not
include service pay in the general staff wage packets
until it was brought to its attention in May 1986 by
the Union. However, it will not accept that the same
error was made for the workers involved in this claim.
(ii) The Chefs Productivity Agreement of 1982 makes no
mention of service pay being part of the new wage rates
agreed. The Union cannot accept, therefore, that
service pay is already included in the workers' rates
of pay.
(iii) The company states that the workers have been in
receipt of service pay since 1982. However, it does
not state that they were getting service pay prior to
1982 agreement. It should be noted that two of the
workers are not affected by that agreement.
(iv) It is not true to say that the Union did not raise the
matter until 1986. The issue was raised in 1978 at
local level.
Company's arguments:
6. (a) Service pay is, and always, has been included in basic
weekly pay. There is no provision under the existing
pay roll system to pay it as a seperate entity.
(b) Service Pay was included in basic pay, prior to the
1982 Productivity Agreement. Therefore, it is logical
that it should also be included in the new basic pay,
this is particularly so in the absence of a clause in
the agreement to the contrary. Concession of the
Union's claim would be contrary to the spirit of the
1982 agreement.
(c) The new rates of pay came into operation in 1982. If
the error which the Union is claiming was to have taken
place it is most surprising that it did not come to
light prior to mid-1986.
(d) The rates of pay of the Head Chef and Second Head Chef
are negotiated personally between the Company and the
individual workers. The rate of pay of the remaining
chefs is determined by virtue of the Dublin Hotels
Branch pay structure.
(e) Concession of the Union's claim would result in
repercussive claims throughout the Company's other
Hotels.
RECOMMENDATION:
7. It appears to the Court that the rates of pay and conditions
of employment of the Head Chef and the 2nd Head Chef are
negotiated on an individual basis without regard to the Union
rates and without specific reference to Service Pay. The Court
does not, therefore, recommend concession of the claim in respect
of these workers.
In respect of Chefs, by the same token, the rates are negotiated
by reference to Union rates to which Service Pay is traditionally
added. As there was no specific agreement not to pay Service Pay,
as provided for in the Union agreement, the Court recommends
concession of the claim.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John M Horgan
10th February, 1987 ---------------
T O'M/U.S. Chairman