Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD91134 Case Number: LCR13246 Section / Act: S67 Parties: ALL HALLOWS COLLEGE - and - SERVICE INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Claim for an increase in pay for eight domestic general workers.
Recommendation:
5. The Court has given careful consideration to all the points
made in the submissions from the parties and to the additional
points made at the hearing. The Court was also presented with a
set of accounts from the College to year ended 31/8/90. Taking
all aspects of the claim into account the Court is of the view
that the most realistic manner in which this dispute can be
resolved is as follows:
(a) The College agree to pay the claimants an increase of #5
per week from 1/1/91.
(b) The parties commence discussions on the application of
the terms of the Employment Regulation Order (S.I.
No. 147 of 1990) Hotels Joint Labour Committee 1990 to
the claimants. The Court envisages that these talks
would conclude by 31/8/91.
The Court so recommends.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Keogh Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD91134 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13246
THE LABOUR COURT
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26, INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT 1990
PARTIES: ALL HALLOWS COLLEGE
AND
SERVICE INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim for an increase in pay for eight domestic general
workers.
BACKGROUND:
2. The College is a private institution and depends on its own
resources for all its income. Its core business, the training of
seminarians for the priesthood, has been declining in recent years
and the College has sought to make up losses by going into other
areas. The College also provides conference facilities which are
run on a commercial basis.
The workers concerned are paid #116 per week and are seeking a #20
per week increase. They claim that the equivalent JLC rate of
#123.72 (Hotels) would be insufficient. The College argues that
its current financial position makes it impossible to meet any
increase and that while wages are low, the jobs contain an element
of partial board and lodging. The equivalent JLC rate is #104.75
(Hotels).
The dispute could not be resolved locally and was referred to the
conciliation service of the Labour Court on 27 November, 1990. A
conciliation conference held on 8 January, 1991 could find no
basis for resolution and the dispute was referred to a full
hearing of the Labour Court with the agreement of the parties. A
Labour Court investigation took place on 14 March, 1991.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The workers, who have up to 27 years' service, work a 77
hour fortnight on a double day shift cycle. The work pattern
involves working every weekend including alternate
Saturdays/Sundays. The rate of pay is unacceptably low by
any reasonable standards and does not reflect the range of
duties or compensate for the unsocial work pattern. The
equivalent rate of pay in the Hotel Industry is #123.72 and
in addition workers in that trade who normally work on
Sundays are paid a Sunday equivalent of between #11 and #15
per week.
2. Had the basic terms of the Programme for National
Recovery (P.N.R.) been applied in September, 1988 the rate of
pay being paid by the College would now be #117.90, more than
its present level. This would be without any compensation
for the change in the work pattern (details supplied to the
Court), which would have had to attract premium rates for
shift work and week-end work.
3. There was a pre-existing commitment on the part of the
College to review the pay of staff when the conference
facility became fully operational (details supplied to the
Court). The College has never argued that the rates of pay
have been fair and reasonable, only its inability to pay.
The workers have over time made great sacrifices to ensure
the success of the College on the understanding that this
would lead to an improvement in the financial position of the
College. If there are financial difficulties (which the
Union has no reason to accept) the College are expecting its
staff to subsidise inadequate charges.
COLLEGE'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The College is a private institution and is not in
receipt of any grant aid or subsidy. Its core business, the
education of seminarians for the priesthood has been
declining for some years (details supplied to the Court).
Over the years, the College has made great efforts to redress
the fall in income. BA and MA degree courses are now
available to external students and there are presently 100
students taking such courses. The Conference centre has been
refurbished to a good standard in an effort to increase this
business and generate further income. In addition various
fund raising drives have been launched.
2. Unfortunately the financial position shows a
substantial operating deficit (details supplied to the
Court) for y/e 31 August, 1990. Difficult decisions have had
to be taken and domestic staff in line with other categories
of staff, have not been awarded any increase for the current
year. These measures, together with a possible increase in
income, will, hopefully mean a more realistic financial
position and help the College maintain its current level of
employment.
3. The College cannot compete with Hotels as far as
conferences are concerned because they do not have the same
facilities. Salary rates are however comparable with the
Hotels JLC rates of #104.75 as there is an element of partial
board and lodgings with the jobs. There was never a
commitment that salaries would improve substantially when the
Conference Centre became operational because the core
business continued to decline. Real improvement can only
come when the College's core business improves substantially.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court has given careful consideration to all the points
made in the submissions from the parties and to the additional
points made at the hearing. The Court was also presented with a
set of accounts from the College to year ended 31/8/90. Taking
all aspects of the claim into account the Court is of the view
that the most realistic manner in which this dispute can be
resolved is as follows:
(a) The College agree to pay the claimants an increase of #5
per week from 1/1/91.
(b) The parties commence discussions on the application of
the terms of the Employment Regulation Order (S.I.
No. 147 of 1990) Hotels Joint Labour Committee 1990 to
the claimants. The Court envisages that these talks
would conclude by 31/8/91.
The Court so recommends.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
5th April, 1991 Evelyn Owens
J.F. / M.O'C. _______________
Deputy Chairman