Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD88748 Case Number: LCR12275 Section / Act: S67 Parties: UNIVERSITY COLLEGE DUBLIN - and - IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS UNION |
Claims for (i) premium payment for light cooking duties and (ii) improvement in pay scale for chefs.
Recommendation:
9. The Court, having considered the submissions made by the
parties and noting that formal pay relationships did not
previously exist between the claimants and the categories claimed
and also noting that changes in duties did not take place which
would warrant an increase in pay, does not recommend concession of
the claims.
Division: Mr Fitzgerald Mr Shiel Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD88748 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12275
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: UNIVERSITY COLLEGE DUBLIN
and
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claims for (i) premium payment for light cooking duties and
(ii) improvement in pay scale for chefs.
GENERAL BACKGROUND:
2. These claims could not be resolved at local level and were
referred to the Conciliation Service of the Labour Court on the
25th February, 1988. A conciliation conference was held on the
9th May, 1988 but no agreement was reached. The dispute was
referred to the Labour Court for investigation and recommendation
on the 18th October, 1988. A Court hearing was held on the 28th
October, 1988 but was adjourned in order to give the parties an
opportunity to obtain further details in relation to rates of pay
of chefs in other comparable employments. This information was
forwarded to the Court on 12th December, 1988 and 23rd January,
1989. A resumed Court hearing took place on the 1st February,
1989.
Claim (1) Premium payment for light cooking duties
BACKGROUND:
3. The two workers concerned are employed in the kitchen, one as
a kitchen porter and the other as a canteen assistant. They
undertake light cooking duties during the period October to June
each year. The Union claims that as the workers are involved in
light cooking apart from their normal duties, they should receive
premium payments for these duties. The College has rejected the
claim.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Union has already made agreements with other catering
companies (details supplied to the Court) that a special
premium will be paid to workers who are obliged to be involved
in light cooking duties apart from their normal duties.
Workers who are required to undertake these extra duties are
chosen mainly because of their suitability and adaptability,
and, in fast food restaurants in the City, they would be
considered to be short order cooks and paid accordingly. The
Union is seeking payment in the amount of #2.50 daily, which
is the amount agreed with other catering companies.
COLLEGE'S ARGUMENTS:
5. 1. The cooking duty is part of the normal work of catering
assistants in the College and elsewhere. The College is aware
that special payment for such work is not made by Trinity
College, U.C.C., U.C.G., or in any other comparable catering
establishment. Management rejects the Union's claim as they
consider that no special payment to the College's catering
assistants is justified.
Claim (2) Improvement in pay scale for chefs
BACKGROUND:
6. This claim is made on behalf of 9 chefs and 2 commis chefs who
are working in the Veterinary College (1), Earlsfort Terrace (1)
and Belfield Restaurant (7). The rates of pay of Chef General,
restaurant attendant and confectioner are as follows.
CHEF GENERAL RESTAURANT ATTENDANT CONFECTIONER
1st Point #131.77 1st Point #137.17 1st Point #141.50
135.71 142.45 145.67
139.57 146.79 149.98
143.53 151.16 154.30
147.87 155.53 162.89
152.16 159.90 167.21
156.53 164.27
The Union claims that as the job of chef is more skilled than that
of restaurant attendant a new wage scale should be created which
would come somewhere between the restaurant attendant and the
confectioner scales. The College has rejected the claim stating
that the pay scale for chefs compares favourably with other
Colleges.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
7. 1. When the chef scales were agreed in 1978 they were broadly
in line with similar workers in industrial and institutional
catering firms. They were also generally in line with the
then hotel chef grade. The average chef rate applying in
industrial firms at present is approximately #180 per week.
Hotel chefs earn roughly the same amount, not including Sunday
allowance. As can be seen from these figures the College's
chefs' rate has fallen considerably behind their colleagues in
other employments. The difference has occurred because the
College conceded Public Service pay settlements since 1978
while chefs in outside employments negotiated higher
settlements at local level.
2. The restaurant attendant's post was created in 1983 and
the scale of pay was based on the requirements of the job,
which among other things required the person to be a skilled
waiter and barman. The individual who first held the position
fulfilled these requirements. His successor, however, had no
experience of either waiting or bar-work, yet continued on the
same scale of pay. It must be emphasised that the Union could
have insisted on this rate remaining for the job irrespective
of who held the post. The job has not been filled since the
second occupant left the employment. At the time the post of
restaurant attendant was created, the chefs accepted that the
rate was fair for the skills required and were not resentful
that the scale of pay was higher than theirs. It is surely an
anomaly in wage scales where the College pay a considerably
higher rate to an unskilled person than to a chef who has
served an apprenticeship in a highly skilled trade.
COLLEGE'S ARGUMENTS:
8. 1. The scale of pay for Chefs General stands comparison with
the rates paid to chefs at a similar level in Trinity College
(details of grades and pay scales supplied to the Court). The
Union has claimed that an anomaly existed by comparing the
chef scale with the scale of the restaurant attendant.
Originally the restaurant attendant scale was lower. Four
years ago however, the then holder of the post appealed his
case for an increase in pay to a Rights Commissioner, and
succeeded in having his scale of pay amended. The amended
scale is now higher than that of Chef General. The restaurant
attendant resigned, and was replaced by another who in turn
transferred to another post in the College. The restaurant
attendant post is now vacant and is unlikely to be filled as
long as the College's financial problems continue.
2. The College does not regard as valid the comparison of the
Chef General with the restaurant attendant grade. There never
was a relationship between the two grades and the College does
not intend to create one in the future. Because of a
reduction in its income the College has had to reduce
expenditure whenever possible and has therefore been obliged
to resist claims for wage increases not only in the
restaurant, but whenever they arise. It is concerned that
consequential claims might arise if a special increase were
now given to the Chef General grade.
RECOMMENDATION:
9. The Court, having considered the submissions made by the
parties and noting that formal pay relationships did not
previously exist between the claimants and the categories claimed
and also noting that changes in duties did not take place which
would warrant an increase in pay, does not recommend concession of
the claims.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Nicholas Fitzgerald
________________________
21st February, 1989. Deputy Chairman
T.O'D/J.C.