Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD89431 Case Number: LCR12459 Section / Act: S67 Parties: DUBLIN AIRPORT RESTAURANTS - and - IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION |
Change in the rostering of bar staff.
Recommendation:
5. The Court has considered the submissions made by the parties.
It has come to the conclusion that having regard to the
comparatively minor changes in the roster required of the staff in
comparison to bar staff generally that the employer's offers are
reasonable. The Court therefore recommends that the bar staff
concerned implement the new roster and accept one of the
alternative offers proposed by the employer.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr Shiel Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD89431 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12459
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 T0 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: DUBLIN AIRPORT RESTAURANTS
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATED UNION OF EMPLOYERS)
and
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Change in the rostering of bar staff.
BACKGROUND:
2. At present the airport bars are open until 10 p.m. on Sunday
nights and staff are rostered until 11 p.m. to allow for cleaning
up etc. Arising from the change in the licencing laws which came
into effect in June, 1988, the Company is seeking to alter the
roster to allow for working until midnight on Sundays (closing at
11 p.m.). The change in relation to the "holy hour" has no
relevance since the airport bars were entitled to remain open
during that period. The proposed new roster will not require the
staff to work additional hours. At local level management made
the following proposal to the Union in respect of the
re-rostering:
#350 lump sum plus 5p per hour
or
#250 lump sum plus 10p per hour.
This offer was rejected by the Union which sought the application
of settlements elsewhere i.e. a reduction in the working fortnight
from 80 hours to 78, a pay increase of #8.25 per week which would
also accrue to Sunday payments, bringing the total increase to
#9.07, with pro rata increases for commis and apprentice barmen.
No agreement was reached, and the matter was referred on 1st
February, 1989 to the conciliation service of the Labour Court. A
conciliation conference took place on 5th May, 1989. Again no
agreement was reached and the matter was referred to a full
hearing of the Labour Court. The hearing took place on 29th June,
1989.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Union's claim is as outlined in the previous
paragraph.
2. The Company's business has increased in recent times. Its
position is unique in that it does not exist in a competitive
environment as do other bars in the city.
3. The working conditions of bar assistants in Dublin Airport
are similar to those of bar assistants in city hotels who
provided a service to residents and those having meals during
the "holy hour." For many years the Company has enjoyed an
advantage over city hotels as nothing extra was paid for
remaining open during the "holy hour."
4. The Union has reached agreement on this matter with a
number of city hotels (details supplied to the Court).
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. Management believes that for what is essentially a
re-rostering exercise without additional hours it is not valid
to draw comparisons with establishments where concessions have
been made in respect of (a) an additional hours work, and/or
(b) where the concessions are made in respect of a long
outstanding claim for additional compensation relating to
cleaning up time.
2. The present exercise is related to re-rostering and should
not be used by Union to pursue comparability or relativity
claims. The terms of the Programme for National Recovery have
been agreed at Dublin Airport Restaurants and there is no
provision in the Programme for comparability or relativity
claims.
3. The Union has sought to justify its position by reference
to increased trading at the airport. Management cannot accept
this argument as a basis for justifying the Union's position
and has pointed out that additional staff have been employed
to cater for increased business, with consequent additional
cost.
4. Management considers that the marginal benefit accruing
from the additional hours trading on Sundays does not justify
increases of the type sought by the Union.
5. Other staff operate flexible rosters and are in receipt of
the same basic rates as the staff here concerned.