Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD9152 Case Number: LCR13252 Section / Act: S67 Parties: JURY'S HOTEL - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Dispute concerning:- (1) Termination of employment of a maintenance trainee. (2) Weekend scheduling in the maintenance department.
Recommendation:
9. Claim (1) Trainee Maintenance
Having considered the submissions made in this case the Court
inclines to the view that whatever issues remained to be resolved
on the 1985 agreement it is highly unlikely that the Company would
have implemented the agreement on trainees if there were any
danger that they would thereby incur a liability to employ
permanent staff surplus to their operational requirements.
The Court, in this particular case notes that in fact the
permanent maintenance staff has actually been increased since the
trainee was first employed and also the worker involved has taken
full and conscientious advantage of the opportunity afforded him
by the scheme thereby enhancing his opportunity for employment in
the industry and in these circumstances does not recommend
concession of the Union's claim.
Claim (2) Weekend Scheduling
10. In view of the clear liability to operate rosters every
second Sunday, the Court takes the view that being required to
meet this obligation only occasionally certainly does not warrant
any special treatment for the staff concerned.
The Court does not find any merit in the claim and therefore does
not recommend concession of the Union's claim.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr McHenry Mr Devine
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD9152 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13252
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 67, INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1946
PARTIES: JURY'S HOTEL
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATION OF IRISH EMPLOYERS)
and
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning:-
(1) Termination of employment of a maintenance trainee.
(2) Weekend scheduling in the maintenance department.
GENERAL BACKGROUND:
2. The claims were discussed at local level and at a conciliation
conference held on the 8th January, 1991. As no agreement was
reached the issues were referred to the Labour Court for
investigation and recommendation on the 14th January, 1991. A
Court hearing was held in Cork on the 14th March, 1991.
Claim (1) Termination of employment of a worker
3. The worker concerned commenced employment as a trainee
maintenance worker on the 25th April, 1988. The Company gave the
worker his notice in October, 1990 stating that now that he was
trained there was no permanent vacancy for him in the maintenance
section. The Union claims that the worker should be retained on
the permanent staff and states that the worker was given to
understand by Management that when trained he would be made
permanent. The Company has rejected the Union's claim, on the
grounds that an agreement reached in 1985 provided that a trainee
would only be made permanent if a permanent vacancy arose in the
relevant department.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The worker concerned, since his appointment in 1988,
continued to work capably and without unfavourable comment
from Management, when without warning the Company indicated
that they intended to terminate his employment as a trainee
worker.
2. The Union was under the impression that the worker was a
trainee on scale filling a permanent position and was amazed
at the Company's decision. As a result of the Union's
objection to Management's decision, the Company has agreed to
defer the issue pending the Court's recommendation.
3. During 1988 the Union agreed in an unprecedented effort in
the industry to introduce scales over four years for certain
categories of staff e.g. porters stores, laundry, cleaners
etc. All these grades had hitherto only "rate for the job."
When these new scales were introduced it was on the clear
understanding that while new workers on scale would, if they
were surplus to requirement at the end of training, be let go,
it was specifically stated by the Union that full consultation
must take place to ensure that agreed permanent staffing
levels existed in each department.
4. This, the Company did not do in the case of the worker
concerned. His initial conditions were never conveyed to the
Union. He had no say in the matter but to accept what was
imposed on him. The Union never accepted the Company's
contention in 1985 that trainees could be discarded almost at
will.
5. Jury's Hotel is the largest and most successful hotel in
Cork, it has a small maintenance staff which covers an
unending supply of work. The Company needs to expand this
unit, not decrease even by one member. The Hotel over the
past number of years has engaged in significant expansion, and
the Union feels that the Company should appoint the worker to
a permanent position.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
5. 1. Jury's Hotel has for the past number of years operated in
agreement with the Union a training programme for its various
categories of workers. In the case of the worker concerned he
was offered the position of "Trainee Maintenance Person - Year
1" by letter dated 19th April, 1988 (details supplied to the
Court).
2. By letter to the Union dated 14th November, 1985, the
Company confirmed the circumstances that would apply at the
end of the training period i.e. "it is now a matter of record
that both parties agree that trainees cease employment at the
end of their training period and will be rehired by the
employer if and only if there is qualified work available in
that department i.e. work for a qualified person."
3. The Company and the Union agreed the rates of pay to apply
to trainees on the 18th February, 1988 (details supplied to
the Court ). The worker concerned has been paid in accordance
with the agreed payment structure.
4. Given the facts of the case and in the light of the
various agreements in place, the Company would contend that it
has the right to terminate employment at the end of a period
of training when no work for a qualified person exists within
the department in question.
Claim (2) Weekend scheduling-maintenance department:
Background:
6. The workers concerned are rostered to work a ten day eighty
hour fortnight and have a liability to be rostered for work on
every second Sunday. Their wages include an allowance for the
Sunday commitment. The Union claims that the workers concerned
should receive appropriate overtime payments in respect of Sunday
working in particular over the weekend of the Cork Jazz festival.
Management has rejected the claim.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
7. 1. The workers concerned have always had a working week
Monday-Friday 8.00 a.m. to 5.00 p.m. (approximately). Over
the years this system did not vary and any hours outside this
were on overtime rates or time off as agreed.
2. Over the past two years Management has demanded that the
workers make themselves available, the same as other staff,
who do not have the same conditions as the maintenance
department, for the October, Jazz week-end. This in effect
meant that outside their normal finishing times, and also on a
Saturday or Sunday they were now being required to work for no
extra payment.
3. The workers concerned were willing to work provided it was
paid for at the appropriate premium, but the Company has
insisted that the workers' old conditions no longer prevail
and their rate is all inclusive. The workers never agreed to
change their system and have been working the extra Jazz
weekends for the past two years under protest. The Union
claims that the Jazz weekend work is outside the normal week
and the workers should be recompensed accordingly.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
8. 1. In the case of the workers concerned, the reality is that
the Company only requires them to work one Sunday in the
entire year i.e. the Jazz weekend. Time off in lieu of the
working of additional hours in respect of that weekend has
been the custom and practice for many years and the Company
sees no justification for changing it now.
2. The Company has implemented the full terms of the
Programme for National Recovery including the change to a 78
hour fortnight and any additional changes to working
conditions which could in any way be considered to be of a
cost increasing nature are specifically precluded under the
terms of the aforementioned programme.
RECOMMENDATION:
9. Claim (1) Trainee Maintenance
Having considered the submissions made in this case the Court
inclines to the view that whatever issues remained to be resolved
on the 1985 agreement it is highly unlikely that the Company would
have implemented the agreement on trainees if there were any
danger that they would thereby incur a liability to employ
permanent staff surplus to their operational requirements.
The Court, in this particular case notes that in fact the
permanent maintenance staff has actually been increased since the
trainee was first employed and also the worker involved has taken
full and conscientious advantage of the opportunity afforded him
by the scheme thereby enhancing his opportunity for employment in
the industry and in these circumstances does not recommend
concession of the Union's claim.
Claim (2) Weekend Scheduling
10. In view of the clear liability to operate rosters every
second Sunday, the Court takes the view that being required to
meet this obligation only occasionally certainly does not warrant
any special treatment for the staff concerned.
The Court does not find any merit in the claim and therefore does
not recommend concession of the Union's claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
___________________________
11th April, 1991. Deputy Chairman
T.O'D./J.C.