Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD91159 Case Number: LCR13580 Section / Act: S20(1) Parties: LISTER TUBES LIMITED - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Dispute concerning (a) Compensation for loss of canteen facilities (b) Deduction of Union contributions at source
Recommendation:
Having considered the submissions made by the parties on the
issues outstanding between them the Court recommends:-
(a) That the compensation for the loss of canteen facilities of
a voucher to the value of #140 be paid to the staff
concerned.
(b) That provisions for deductions of Union dues at source be
made with effect from a date nine months after the date on
which formal recognition was accorded the Union by the
Company.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr McHenry Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD91159 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13580
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES: LISTER TUBES LIMITED
(Represented by the Federation of Irish Employers)
and
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning
(a) Compensation for loss of canteen facilities
(b) Deduction of Union contributions at source
GENERAL BACKGROUND:
2. In late 1990 the Union took a number of clerical staff into
membership and sought recognition from the Company in order to
discuss conditions of employment. The Company did not grant
formal recognition and the Union referred this matter and a
number of matters relating to conditions of employment to the
Labour Court under Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations
Act, 1969. The Union agreed to be bound by the recommendation
of the Court. At the Court hearing held on 17th December, 1991
the Company agreed to grant formal recognition and the hearing
was adjourned so that the parties could hold local discussions
on outstanding differences in relation to conditions of
employment. Following local discussions the parties reached
agreement on all issues except for the claims at (a) and (b)
above. The Court held a resumed hearing on 17th February, 1992.
3. Claim (a) compensation for loss of canteen facilities
BACKGROUND
For economic reasons the Company carried out an overall review
of operations in 1990. In reviewing canteen facilities it found
that there was a low usage of full canteen facilities by
clerical staff and that a considerable financial loss to the
Company continually occurred. The Company made the canteen
staff redundant and reduced facilities from 1st March, 1991.
This effectively means that the facilities in the canteen
area are available for use by staff but the canteen is no longer
staffed and is not in a position to provide hot meals. The
Union claims that compensation of #140 should be paid to
clerical staff for the loss of full canteen facilities. The
Company offered compensation of #50 which was rejected by the
Union.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company decided to reduce canteen facilities
without any attempt at gaining agreement from the staff and
without any offer of compensation for a reduction in their
conditions. The Company subsequently offered compensation
of #50 which was rejected by the Union. The manual workers
in the Company received compensation of #140 for the same
loss of canteen facilities and the clerical staff should
not be treated less favourably.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
5. 1. The review of canteen facilities found that there was
low usage by clerical staff. The majority of staff only
use the canteen for tea or coffee, or to heat home prepared
meals. In recognition of this level of usage the Company
has fully maintained and extended self-service facilities.
The staff were kept fully informed of the changes needed.
The discomfort caused by the reduction in services is
minimal and the extended replacement services are
sufficient. Some of the manual staff did receive
compensation for the reduction in canteen facilities but a
similar claim on behalf of clerical staff is invalid
because of the difference in terms of usage and conditions
of employment between both groups of workers.
Claim (b) Deduction of Union contributions at source
6. BACKGROUND
The Company claims that it is corporate policy to request a
one year interim period before beginning deductions at
source. During local level discussions the Company offered
a 9 month waiting period. The Union claims that deduction
at source should be implemented immediately.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
7. 1. There is no good reason for an undue delay in
implementing deductions at source which should commence
immediately.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
8. 1. It is corporate policy to request a 12-month interim
period before deduction at source of Union contributions
commences. The Company would like to maintain this 12
month interim period, but as a gesture of goodwill offered
a 9 month interim period at local level discussions. In
the face of corporate pressure the Company cannot justify
any further reduction in the 9 month interim period.
RECOMMENDATION:
Having considered the submissions made by the parties on the
issues outstanding between them the Court recommends:-
(a) That the compensation for the loss of canteen facilities of
a voucher to the value of #140 be paid to the staff
concerned.
(b) That provisions for deductions of Union dues at source be
made with effect from a date nine months after the date on
which formal recognition was accorded the Union by the
Company.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
________________________
3rd March, 1992
A.S./N.Ni.M. Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Alfie Smith, Court Secretary.