Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD87710 Case Number: AD8784 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: CARMELITE PRIORY WHITEFRIAR ST - and - ITGWU |
Appeal by the Union on behalf of three workers against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation No. B.C.41/87, concerning an alleged change in conditions of employment.
Recommendation:
40
Division: Mr Fitzgerald Mr Shiel Mr O'Murchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD87710 THE LABOUR COURT AD8487
Section 13(9) INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
DECISION NO. 84 OF 1987
Parties: CARMELITE PRIORY (WHITEFRIAR STREET)
(Represented by the Federated Union of Employers)
and
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
Subject:
1. Appeal by the Union on behalf of three workers against Rights
Commissioner's Recommendation No. B.C.41/87, concerning an alleged
change in conditions of employment.
Background:
2. The three workers concerned were employed in the Catering
Section of Whitefriar Street Church. Worker A commenced
employment in 1979, worker B in 1978, and worker C in May, 1985.
The Union contends that the pay of workers A and B was reduced in
June, 1986, and that worker C, in order to retain her weekly rate
of pay was required to work ten hours extra per week. The Priory
indicated that for some reasons, that are now impossible to
clearly identify, a slippage occurred whereby the three workers in
question were paid for hours which latterly they had not worked.
These inconsistencies were identified when a new Prior, on taking
over, was obliged, on account of the Priory's serious financial
difficulties, to undertake an investigation into all activities at
Whitefriar Street. The Union sought substantial compensation for
each of the three workers. The Priory pointed out, however, that
all three workers had been given an opportunity to retain their
rates of pay by adjusting upwards their working hours and that
workers A and B had rejected this arrangement. As grounds for
settlement could not be reached at local level, the Union on 12th
March, 1987, referred the matter to a Rights Commissioner for
investigation and recommendation.
3. On 12th August, 1987, the Rights Commissioner issued the
following findings and recommendation:-
"Findings:
Having investigated the matter and given full and careful
consideration to the points made by each party, I have come
to the following conclusions:-
1. There is an absence of clear records relating to 1978
and 1979 which would establish beyond all residue of
doubt as to what basis was on which workers A and B
were employed;
2. In the absence of this hard evidence, I must rely upon
reasonable conjecture;
3. There is no dispute at all concerning the financial
background which in the eyes of the management of the
Priory justified the changes made;
4. I note that the opportunity was given to each of the
three ladies to retain their level of income by
undertaking additional non-catering duties;
5. While it is a pity that this opportunity was not found
acceptable by workers A and B, nonetheless, I am
impressed by the reasons given although I do not
endorse these.
Recommendation
In the light of the above, I recommend that each of the three
ladies be dealt with equally and that the Carmelite Priory,
Whitefriar Street, make a payment of #300 (ex gratia) to each of
three workers and this was accepted in full and final discharge of
all claims on the Priory following the changes in working
arrangements. In making this recommendation, I am taking into
account
1. the imprecisions surrounding the original terms of
employment of workers A and B;
2. the financial context;
3. the events which probably did give rise to the
unsatisfactory working hours arrangement;
4. the degree to which the previous management of the
Priory must be held responsible for the slippage which
had taken place;
5. the fact that from evidence submitted, I am satisfied
that the rates of pay in operation in June, 1986 were
roughly comparable to rates of pay for a 40 hour week
in other catering establishments within the province of
the Catering Joint Labour Committee."
(The workers concerned were mentioned by name in the Rights
Commissioner's recommendation).
The Union rejected the recommendation and on 16th September, 1987,
appealed it to the Labour Court under Section 13(9) of the
Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Court hearing took place on
15th October, 1987.
Union's arguments:
4. (a) The Union is not satisfied that the Priory has produced
evidence to show that the workers concerned were
employed on a 40 hours per week basis. When one of the
workers worked overtime in February, 1986, her rate of
pay was based on the rate of pay of a 30 hour week.
(b) The Union is of the view that since the new Prior took
over, the Priory appears to have resolved its financial
difficulties or to have substantially reduced the
deficit. This is substantiated by the fact that in
November, 1986, the Carmelite Order granted an increase
of 5.7%.
(c) As a result of the arbitrary changes in the three
workers' conditions of employment, they have suffered
a severe financial loss, as follows:-
Worker A has lost approximately #2,000
Worker B " " " #1,500
Worker C " " " #2.500
(d) A grave injustice has been committed against the
workers concerned, who have established through custom
and practice their rate of pay and hours of work pre -
March, 1986.
Priory's arguments:
5. (a) The workers concerned were employed on a full working
week basis with a fixed weekly rate of pay. There is a
direct link between the rates of pay applying in the
Priory and those applying throughout the Carmelite
Order. This demonstrates that the rate is applicable
to a 40 hour working week. Indeed, overtime
calculations were based on the weekly rate, divided by
40.
(b) Due to over-staffing, a lack of work and poor
management control, a situation developed whereby the
workers concerned were able to take time-off during the
day when they should have been working. Although this
was paid for in the past, the financial difficulties
necessitated a reduction in this high level of
inefficiency.
(c) Any loss that has been incurred by the workers
concerned is as a result of their decision, made in
June, 1986, not to undertake additional work. One
worker has suffered no loss because she undertook the
additional work. The Priory considers the actions they
have taken to be fair and reasonable in the
circumstances.
DECISION:
6. The Court does not find that grounds have been established for
altering the Rights Commissioner's recommendation in respect of
each of the three workers concerned. The Court so decides.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
30th October, 1987 Nicholas Fitzgerald
B O'N/US Deputy Chairman