Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD87664 Case Number: AD8785 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: BEWLEYS CAFE(GEORGES ST.) - and - ITGWU |
Appeal against Rights Commissioners Recommendation Number B.C. 84/87 concerning a dispute over the maintenance of the gents toilets in the Bewley's Georges Street branch.
Recommendation:
5. The Court finds no justification for rejecting the Rights
Commissioner's Recommendation and accordingly considers that the 9
catering assistants agree with Management, a rota which would
ensure the necessary maintenance of the gents toilets.
The Court further agrees with the Rights Commissioner's statement
that it cannot be regarded as part of the normal or traditional
duties of the catering staff in South Georges Street and
recommends a once off payment of #50 to each of the claimants on
condition they participate in the rota.
The Court so decides.
Division: Ms Owens Mr McHenry Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD87664 THE LABOUR COURT AD8587
SECTION 13(9)
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
APPEAL DECISION NO. 85 OF 1987
Parties: BEWLEYS CAFE - CAMPBELL CATERING LIMITED
and
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
Subject:
1. Appeal against Rights Commissioners Recommendation Number B.C.
84/87 concerning a dispute over the maintenance of the gents
toilets in the Bewley's Georges Street branch.
Background:
2. Bewleys Georges Street operate a shop and cafe and provide
toilet facilities for males and females. Prior to 1987 a porter
was employed in the shop and part of his duties was to ensure that
the gents toilets were adequately maintained during the day. In
addition the toilets were fully cleaned by a contract cleaning
company at night. Because of trading difficulties the porter was
transferred to another location. Following his transfer the
manager (who was male) carried out any jobs which had to be done
in the gents toilets. The manager was subsequently transferred
and a dispute arose as to who should clean the toilets. The
Company expected the female catering staff (9 workers) to carry
out these duties. The workers concerned objected to having to
take on these duties. A number of meetings and correspondence
ensued between the parties culminating in Management closing the
shop on Monday, 8th June, 1987 because there was no one to clean
the gents toilets. As a result of a meeting held on that
afternoon it was agreed that the gents toilets be cleaned by four
catering workers, under protest, on a rota basis and to refer the
matter to a Rights Commissioner for investigation and
recommendation. On 20th July, 1987 the Rights Commissioner issued
the following recommendation:
"While I hold that it cannot be regarded as part of the
normal or traditional duties of the catering staff at the
South Georges Street Dublin branch of Bewleys Cafes Ltd to
undertake responsibility for the cleaning/maintenance of the
gents toilets, I must, on the other hand, take into account
and give due weight to the urgent and continuing need for
the company to contain, and indeed reduce, costs. This need
is particularly acute at the South Georges Street Branch.
I therefore recommend to the South Georges Street catering
staff in membership with the Irish Transport and General
Workers Union that they should, in the interest of
preserving the viability of the restaurant freely and
voluntarily come to an acceptable arrangement among
themselves and taking account a similar contribution from
the part-time/temporary staff, which will ensure the
necessary maintenance of the gents toilets will be dealt
with effectively.
This case related only to the South Georges Street branch
and my recommendation is likewise confined to that premises.
A secondary issue concerned a claim on behalf of the staff
for payment of wages for the day on which the restaurant was
closed.
Since this closure was due to the failure of the staff
concerned to observe and implement the terms of the adequate
and workable disputes procedure in existence within the
company I cannot recommend in favour of the employees
involved."
The Union appealed this recommendation to the Labour Court under
Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. The Court
heard the appeal on 13th October, 1987.
Union's arguments:
3. (a) The new Company made it clear when they were taking
over Bewleys that they intended retaining the old
Bewleys traditions and this was said to allay the fears
of the older staff who felt that their normal mode of
work would be drastically changed.
(b) The work is not proper to catering workers as in the
past it was always performed by a non-catering worker.
The gents toilets in other branches are cleaned and
maintained by non-catering workers.
(c) Customers have made it known to staff that they would
not patronise the cafe in future if they knew that the
catering staff were also involved in the cleaning of
public toilets.
(d) The Union is contending that this is an extra workload
being imposed on the workers with the overhanging
threat of closure if they do not agree to it. if a
precedent is created in this case it will probably lead
to confrontation in other branches.
(e) All other top class restaurants in Dublin employ a
cleaner to look after toilets.
Company's arguments:
4. (i) The workers concerned already clean and maintain the
ladies toilets as part of their normal duties. When
Campbell Catering took over Bewleys a number of basic
points were agreed which were reflected in the
conditions of employment, including flexibility. It is
Management's contention that the request to have the
gents toilet maintained by the catering staff is
covered by the flexibility clause. The workers
concerned were not being asked to do anything more than
they already had being doing.
(ii) Since Campbell Catering took over Bewleys the entire
operation has been under review. The Company is
committed to trying to maintain Bewleys as it has
always been and it is necessary that staff co-operate
with Management whereever possible. Failure to do so
will not ensure that the unit in which they operate
will become viable and profitable.
(iii) Management must have the right to request workers to
carry out a duty which is reasonable. The workers may
not like the duty but that does not mean that
Management should not have the right to request them to
do it. If one were allowed to choose what they wished
to do or not do no company could be run in any form of
efficient manner.
(iv) The Company was left with no alternative but to close
the shop on 8th June, 1987 because it had not got a
guarantee that the gents toilets would be cleaned. The
workers were in breach of accepted procedures whereby
the disputed duty should have been carried out under
protest whilst the matter was referred to a third
party. It is the Company's contention that under these
circumstances there is no case for paying the workers a
days wages in respect of the closure.
DECISION:
5. The Court finds no justification for rejecting the Rights
Commissioner's Recommendation and accordingly considers that the 9
catering assistants agree with Management, a rota which would
ensure the necessary maintenance of the gents toilets.
The Court further agrees with the Rights Commissioner's statement
that it cannot be regarded as part of the normal or traditional
duties of the catering staff in South Georges Street and
recommends a once off payment of #50 to each of the claimants on
condition they participate in the rota.
The Court so decides.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Evelyn Owens
__29th__October, 1987. ___________________
M. D. / J. C. Deputy Chairman