Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD91139 Case Number: LCR13296 Section / Act: S67 Parties: DUBLIN CINEMA GROUP LIMITED - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Dispute concerning:- (a) Pay scale for staff employed in the popcorn kiosk at the Savoy cinema. (b) The filling of a vacancy for a full-time cashier at the Savoy cinema.
Recommendation:
9. Having considered the oral and written submissions of the
parties the Court finds as follow:-
(a) Pay Scale - Popcorn kiosk.
The Court considers that locally agreement was reached on the
rate of pay to be applicable to workers in this kiosk.
The Court finds that the Company in their letter of 26
September, 1990 quite explicitly referred to a review of the
operation of the kiosk.
In all the circumstances the Court does not concede the claim
of the Union.
The Court would ask the parties to note this finding is only
in respect to the rate of pay of the kiosk as discussed when
the agreement was drawn up.
(b) Appointment of Cashier.
Courtesy requires that the Company advise the staff in an
area where a vacancy occurs, in particular staff working in
an acting capacity for a reasonably long period, of the
intention to fill the position through open competition.
In this case the Court is not convinced the claimant was
given prior notice of the vacancy, further it is the view of
the Court that for their own reasons the Company were
avoiding including the claimant in their considerations for
the filling of the post. The Court accept the view expressed
that the claimant was only seen following representations
being made to management.
The Court also take the view that the claimant was not given
to understand that her meeting with management was to be in
the nature of an interview.
The court considers that such an approach is unacceptable and
is not conducive to developing good industrial relations or
achieving efficient and co-operative work from staff.
Notwithstanding the above the Court does not consider that
the claim of the Union, that she be confirmed in the
position, should be conceded.
The Court takes the view that the claimant should be afforded
equitable treatment with all other applicants. To achieve
this the Court considers that interviews should be held for
the post and that these should be conducted by an independent
panel established for the purpose of filling the cashier
vacancy.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
30th May, 1991 Tom McGrath
A.S. / M.O'C. _______________
Deputy Chairman
Division: MrMcGrath Mr Collins Mr Devine
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD91139 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13296
THE LABOUR COURT
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 67, INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT 1946
PARTIES: DUBLIN CINEMA GROUP LIMITED
(Represented by the Federation of Irish Employers)
AND
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning:-
(a) Pay scale for staff employed in the popcorn kiosk at the
Savoy cinema.
(b) The filling of a vacancy for a full-time cashier at the
Savoy cinema.
GENERAL BACKGROUND:
2. The parties failed to reach agreement at local level
discussions regarding the above issues in dispute. The Union
referred the dispute to the Conciliation Service of the Labour
Court on 10th September, 1990. A conciliation conference was held
on 1st November, 1990 at which agreement was not reached. Both
disputes were referred on 25th February, 1991 to the Labour Court
for investigation and recommendation. The Court hearing took
place on 18th April, 1991, (earliest date suitable to the
parties).
Dispute (a) Pay scale for popcorn kiosk staff.
BACKGROUND:
3. In 1989 the Company examined the feasibility of introducing a
popcorn counter in addition to the normal shop kiosk. Following
local discussions between the parties it was agreed in September,
1989 to set the popcorn kiosk up for a trial period of 6 months.
Two new staff were recruited on a rate of pay (i.e. #100 per week)
lower than the rate paid to other kiosk staff. The Union claims
that it agreed to the lower rate of pay during the trial period on
the understanding that the whole operation, including rates of
pay, would be reviewed in 6 months. As the popcorn kiosk proved
successful the Union claims that the staff concerned should have
pay parity with other kiosk staff. The Company claims that an
agreed rate of pay was established in 1989.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Union demonstrated flexibility and goodwill by
agreeing to the introduction of a popcorn kiosk on a trial
basis. It afforded the Company the opportunity to introduce
the new shop initially without linkage to existing pay
scales. It was clearly understood that the whole operation
would be reviewed in 6 months, including the issue of rates
of pay.
2. The Company's position will ensure an end to flexibility
in any similar future venture. The popcorn kiosk has proved
successful and there is no reason why the staff concerned
should not be on the same basic pay as the other kiosk staff
currently employed.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
5. 1. The Company was concerned about the viability of opening
a new popcorn kiosk. Accordingly, it was set up for a
guaranteed trial period of 6 months. The rate of pay for the
two new staff concerned was established at local level and
was to continue until adjusted by increases agreed at normal
wage negotiations.
2. On 26th September, 1989 the Company wrote to the Union
confirming what had been agreed at local level discussions in
relation to the new popcorn kiosk. The final line of the
letter states that "the operation of this kiosk will be
reviewed in six months time". The six months review clearly
referred to the operation of the popcorn kiosk. It was not
meant to refer to the pay and conditions of staff.
3. The Company never gave any commitment to increase the
rate for the popcorn shop staff to the rate for other kiosk
staff. The higher paid kiosk attendant is required to handle
a full range of confectionery while the popcorn kiosk is
limited to the sale of popcorn and minerals.
Dispute (b) the filling of a vacancy for a full-time cashier at
the Savoy cinema.
BACKGROUND:
6. In May, 1988 a worker was recruited for part-time work at the
cinema. The worker was employed as a cashier in the kiosk area
and as an usherette. The cashiers booking office, which has an
establishment of 3 permanent cashier positions, became short
staffed and the worker concerned was assigned to cashier duties.
In December, 1989 the worker commenced full-time employment in the
cashier's office. In September, 1990 one of the full-time
cashiers retired. A dispute arose regarding the filling of the
vacancy. The Union claims that the worker concerned, having
worked as a cashier for 9 months on a full-time basis, should be
appointed to the permanent cashier position. The Company claims
that it has the right to choose the most suitable applicant for
the job, following open interviews. Pending the solution of the
dispute the Company has not filled the cashier position.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
7. 1. The Company does not have a clear procedure for
appointments. It is not the Company's policy to confirm
positions in writing. In 1988, the worker concerned was
asked by the chief usher, who had responsibility for floor
staff, to transfer to the cashier's office. She was
subsequently requested by the chief usher to "go full-time".
She performed the job of cashier without complaint for 9
months and acted in the capacity of chief cashier at one
stage. The worker therefore quite reasonably understood that
she was appointed full-time to the post.
2. When the vacancy for a permanent cashier position
arose the worker concerned was not approached by management.
Other members of staff were approached and asked if they
would be interested in the job. The worker was concerned
when she learned of this and approached management. She had
a meeting with management and was subsequently told that she
would not be appointed to the position.
3. The worker concerned understood that as she was doing
the job for 9 months, she was appointed to the post. It is
custom and practice that staff would progress in this
fashion. It would be grossly unfair to return the worker to
casual status.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
8. 1. The recruitment and selection of staff for any vacancy
within the Cinema Group is covered by clause 20 of the
company/union agreement, which states:-
"The Company reserves the right of selection and recruitment
of labour but is prepared to give consideration to any
representation that the union might make on behalf of its
members to be employed by the company"
The clause clearly gives management the agreed right to
choose the most suitable candidate for the job.
2. The Company feels that all of the staff have a right to
be considered for the vacancy. The Company cannot
automatically guarantee a job to a particular individual. In
considering the most suitable candidate, length of service
will be considered, along with the previous work record,
relevant experience, aptitude, attitude and appearance.
3. Due to staff shortages in the cashier's office the
worker was assigned there for a period of time. She was
never appointed to the cashier's office and no commitment was
given regarding permanency.
4. The vacancy was advertised internally and externally.
The worker concerned was interviewed for the job along with
other candidates. The Company is prepared to go through the
interview process again and allow an input from an
independent third party to ensure that a fair decision is
made.
RECOMMENDATION:
9. Having considered the oral and written submissions of the
parties the Court finds as follow:-
(a) Pay Scale - Popcorn kiosk.
The Court considers that locally agreement was reached on the
rate of pay to be applicable to workers in this kiosk.
The Court finds that the Company in their letter of 26
September, 1990 quite explicitly referred to a review of the
operation of the kiosk.
In all the circumstances the Court does not concede the claim
of the Union.
The Court would ask the parties to note this finding is only
in respect to the rate of pay of the kiosk as discussed when
the agreement was drawn up.
(b) Appointment of Cashier.
Courtesy requires that the Company advise the staff in an
area where a vacancy occurs, in particular staff working in
an acting capacity for a reasonably long period, of the
intention to fill the position through open competition.
In this case the Court is not convinced the claimant was
given prior notice of the vacancy, further it is the view of
the Court that for their own reasons the Company were
avoiding including the claimant in their considerations for
the filling of the post. The Court accept the view expressed
that the claimant was only seen following representations
being made to management.
The Court also take the view that the claimant was not given
to understand that her meeting with management was to be in
the nature of an interview.
The court considers that such an approach is unacceptable and
is not conducive to developing good industrial relations or
achieving efficient and co-operative work from staff.
Notwithstanding the above the Court does not consider that
the claim of the Union, that she be confirmed in the
position, should be conceded.
The Court takes the view that the claimant should be afforded
equitable treatment with all other applicants. To achieve
this the Court considers that interviews should be held for
the post and that these should be conducted by an independent
panel established for the purpose of filling the cashier
vacancy.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
30th May, 1991 Tom McGrath
A.S. / M.O'C. _______________
Deputy Chairman