Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD9251 Case Number: LCR13591 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: GROSVENOR CLEANING SERVICES LIMITED - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Claim by the Union on behalf of 31 cleaning workers for compensation for loss of earnings.
Recommendation:
5. The Court has considered the submissions made by the parties
and recommends that the Company concede a payment of 12.5 hours at
the then prevailing rate to workers directly concerned in the
period January-February, 1991.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr Keogh Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD9251 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13591
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES: GROSVENOR CLEANING SERVICES LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATION OF IRISH EMPLOYERS)
and
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim by the Union on behalf of 31 cleaning workers for
compensation for loss of earnings.
BACKGROUND:
2. The workers concerned are employed by the Company as cleaners,
to service its contract at the R.T.E. centre in Donnybrook,
Dublin. In November, 1990, the client informed the Company that
it was inviting the Company and 3 other major cleaning companies
to tender for the provision of cleaning services. The Company was
subsequently advised that competing tenders were on the basis of
2.5-hour shifts instead of 3-hour shifts which were then in
operation. The Company retained the contract after it tendered on
the basis of 2.5-hour shifts. The Company, on 21st December,
1990, informed the workers of the change in hours. The new hours
were to take effect from 17th January, 1991, (the new contract was
to take effect from 1st January, 1992). The Union objected to the
alteration in hours as the workers would be expected to complete
the same volume of work in less time. On 7th January, 1991, the
matter was referred to the conciliation service of the Labour
Relations Commission. The Company introduced the 2.5-hour shifts
on 17th January, 1991, however, the workers continued to work
their original 3-hour shifts. After 5 weeks the matter was still
unresolved and the workers ceased to work the hours for which they
were not being paid. A series of conciliation conferences were
held during the period January to March, 1991, resulting in an
agreement on working hours involving a mix of 2.5 and 3-hour
shifts. At a further conciliation conference held on 17th May,
1991, a number of residual issues were discussed including a Union
claim for compensation for the period of 5 weeks when the workers
worked 3-hour shifts but were only paid for 2.5-hour shifts. The
Company rejected the Union's claim and on 20th January, 1992, the
matter was referred by the Commission to the Labour Court in
accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act,
1990. The Court investigated the matter on 17th February, 1992.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The workers concerned were assured by their supervisor
that should discussions under the auspices of the Commission
result in agreement on the continuation of the 3-hour shifts,
then they would be paid in full. In view of this they
continued to work the 3-hour shift for a period of 5 weeks.
2. While the Company did give 4 weeks' notice of the change
in hours, as per an Employment Regulation Order, (E.R.O.) the
Union does not have to accept all change proposed. Workers
have a right to dispute a decision which fundamentally alters
their working conditions. Good industrial relations practice
usually results in the status quo being maintained pending the
processing of the dispute through procedures.
3. Given the nature of the industry, labour costs are
normally seen as the only means of improving competitiveness.
This always takes the form of reducing working hours but the
same volume of work is expected. This has a severe impact on
the workers' earning capacity and cannot be accepted lightly.
In this instance a satisfactory agreement was reached which
meets the Company's needs in the long term. It is, therefore,
unreasonable for the Company to refuse this final element in
the settlement.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The E.R.O. provides a framework for dealing with these
matters i.e. that 4 weeks' notice of a change in hours be
given. The dispute procedure provides for working under
protest, if necessary, while an issue is being referred
through procedures. The Company has complied with the E.R.O.
2. The situation was outside the Company's control as the
client required cutbacks. The situation was compounded by the
fact that other contractors were willing to take over the
contract. The Company has suffered a substantial loss in
income as a result of the cutbacks required by the client.
These cutbacks were implemented on 1st January, 1991.
3. The workers concerned did not continue to work after the
2.5-hour shift was finished. They left work, which they felt
could not be completed in the allotted time, unfinished. The
Company, as a result, had to provide extra staff to deal with
this unfinished work.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court has considered the submissions made by the parties
and recommends that the Company concede a payment of 12.5 hours at
the then prevailing rate to workers directly concerned in the
period January-February, 1991.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
______________________
9th March, 1992 Deputy Chairman.
B.O'N./J.C.