Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD87133Additional data Case Number: LCR11159 Section / Act: S20(1) Parties: GRAHAM O SULLIVAN RESTAURANT - and - INUVGATA |
Claim for an improvement in the wages and conditions of one employee.
Recommendation:
5. In the circumstances of this case, the Court recommends that
the worker concerned await the outcome of the promised wage review
in May and in the event that the Union is not satisfied with this
review it should then re-submit the claim to the Court for
recommendation.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr Collins Mr O'Murchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD87133 THE LABOUR COURT LCR11159
SECTION 20(1) INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR11159
Parties: GRAHAM O'SULLIVAN LIMITED
and
IRISH NATIONAL UNION OF VINTNERS, GROCERS
AND ALLIED TRADE ASSISTANTS
Subject:
1. Claim for an improvement in the wages and conditions of one
employee.
Background:
2. The worker commenced employment with the Company in September,
1982. The Union organised a number of employees in the Company's
restaurant in the Artane Castle shopping complex. It sought a
meeting with Management to discuss wages and conditions, but this
was refused. At present the worker concerned is the only employee
in the restaurant who is still in membership of the Union. As the
Company continued to refuse to meet to discuss wages and
conditions, the Union referred the matter to the Labour Court
under Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. Prior
to the Court's investigation the Union agreed to accept the
recommendation of the Court. A Court hearing took place on the
6th April, 1987. In a letter dated 23rd March, 1987 the Company
stated that it felt it would be inappropriate to attend the
hearing for the following reasons:
(i) It has no formal arrangements with the Union for the
purposes of wage and employment condition discussions.
(ii) It has already indicated to its work force, numbering
approximately 100, that a wage review will become
effective from the week commencing 25th May, 1987.
Accordingly, it considers it inappropriate to make an
exception for a member of staff acting in isolation.
Union's arguments:
3. (a) The worker concerned was employed as a restaurant
assistant, cleaning delph etc. and was paid #2 per
hour. In February, 1983, she was granted an increase
of 8p per hour and in February, 1986, she received a
further increase of 17p per hour bringing her to a
current hourly rate of #2.25. Since Union
representation was made on her behalf, she was moved by
Management from behind the counter back on to the floor
of the restaurant and her hours were cut from 30 to
24.5 hours per week.
(b) The Union is seeking the immediate implementation of a
realistic wage rate for the claimant, given her age and
experience. Her present rate of #2.25 per hour is
totally out of line even in comparisons with the lowest
rates for the Catering Joint Labour Committee, which is
#2.71 per hour.
(c) The worker's total wage increase from September, 1982
to present is 12.5% (2.00 to #2.25). Increases of 34%
over a similar period were achieved by kitchen and
cleaning staff in the bar trade of the Union.
Accordingly, the Union requests that the Court
recommends the implementation of the rate of #3.40 per
hour as the going rate for unionised kitchen and
cleaning staff in the Dublin area.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. In the circumstances of this case, the Court recommends that
the worker concerned await the outcome of the promised wage review
in May and in the event that the Union is not satisfied with this
review it should then re-submit the claim to the Court for
recommendation.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell.
_______________________
Deputy Chairman
7th May, 1987
D.H./J.C.