Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD88454 Case Number: LCR12004 Section / Act: S67 Parties: GRESHAM HOTEL - and - IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION |
Claim, on behalf of three maintenance staff, for parity of pay with the hotel's painter and its electrician.
Recommendation:
5. The Court, having considered the submissions made by the
parties, accepts that the extra payments made to the workers
concerned are in return for extended duties and responsibilities
arising out of the present refurbishment of the hotel. The Court
does not, in the circumstances, recommend concession of the
Union's claim for parity but does recommend that the parties meet
to consider the possibility of negotiating a more flexible and
extensive range of duties and responsibilities for the claimants
in return for a commensurate increase in their pay.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr McHenry Mr O'Murchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD88454 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12004
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: GRESHAM HOTEL
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATED UNION OF EMPLOYERS)
AND
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim, on behalf of three maintenance staff, for parity of pay
with the hotel's painter and its electrician.
BACKGROUND:
2. The three maintenance staff concerned are a boilerman, a
carpenter and a plumber. Their present rate of pay is £170.95 per
week plus 2½% share of service charge (approximately £20 per
week). The Union's claim is for parity of pay for these three
workers with the hotel's painter and its electrician who are each
in receipt of an additional £20 per week. Management states that
this arose from productivity deals in the case of these two
workers. It is stated that they took on additional duties with a
continuing liability in the context of a major refurbishment of
the hotel and that no such situation exists in the case of the
other three. No agreement was reached at local level and the
matter was referred, on 1st July, 1987, to the conciliation
service of the Labour Court. A conciliation conference took place
on 20th October, 1987, at which no agreement was reached. The
Union, in May, 1988, requested that the matter be referred to a
full Court hearing. The hearing took place on 4th August, 1988.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. Following the introduction of service charge sharing for
the boilerman in 1978, the electrician and the painter sought
its application to them. This was granted and indicates
recognition by the Company that pay parity existed between the
craftsmen.
2. The claimants became aware of the differential between
themselves and the other two craftsmen by chance. It is not
accepted that genuine productivity deals, related to the
refurbishment of the hotel, exist between the other two
craftsmen and the Company.
3. 3. The Union is seeking that parity of pay between the
craftsmen be restored. An outline of the work of the three
claimants was supplied to the Court. Their contribution and
their commitment to the maintenance of the hotel is no less
than that of the other two craftsmen in terms of skill,
workload and productivity.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The additional payments in the case of the electrician and
the painter exist as a result of productivity in connection
with a major refurbishment of the hotel which is still in
progress. Both have been required to perform work which is
not part of their normal duties (details supplied).
Flexibility of working hours and working practices is also
required. The electrician works an additional hour each day
while the painter has, on occasions, worked through the night
and has been responsible for outside contractors employed by
the hotel.
2. The rate of pay of the painter and the electrician was the
same as that of the other maintenance staff up until the
commencement of the refurbishment work. The three claimants
have not experienced an increase in work load, extra
responsibilities or any change in duties. There is,
therefore, no validity in their claim for pay parity with the
electrician and the painter.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court, having considered the submissions made by the
parties, accepts that the extra payments made to the workers
concerned are in return for extended duties and responsibilities
arising out of the present refurbishment of the hotel. The Court
does not, in the circumstances, recommend concession of the
Union's claim for parity but does recommend that the parties meet
to consider the possibility of negotiating a more flexible and
extensive range of duties and responsibilities for the claimants
in return for a commensurate increase in their pay.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court,
John O'Connell
___23rd___August,___1988. ___________________
A. K. / M. F. Deputy Chairman