Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD93379 Case Number: AD9368 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: CHK LIMITED T/A MASTERCHEFS - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION (SIPTU |
Appeal by the Union against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation No. BC88/93 concerning compensation for loss of earnings for three workers.
Recommendation:
5. The Court notes that while the Company's present arrangements
do not require the employment of sandwich-makers on a casual
basis, the Company has confirmed that should such a requirement
arise, they will be employed under the terms of Clause 4 of the
Company/Union agreement of 10th March, 1992.
In view of the Company's present working arrangements, the Court
does not find grounds to alter the Rights Commissioner's
Recommendation and therefore upholds it.
The Court so decides.
Division: Mr Heffernan Mr McHenry Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD93379 APPEAL DECISION NO. AD6893
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 13(9)
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES: CHK LIMITED T/A MASTERCHEFS
(Represented by the Irish Business and Employers Confederation)
and
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION (SIPTU)
SUBJECT:
1. Appeal by the Union against Rights Commissioner's
Recommendation No. BC88/93 concerning compensation for loss of
earnings for three workers.
BACKGROUND:
2. 1. In March, 1992, Masterchefs was awarded the Curragh
Racecourse catering franchise for the racing season 1992
(March to October). The Company advised the Union that it
would take on some members of the SIPTU casual catering
section on a casual basis and that it would also be
interviewing additional local staff.
2. On 30th September, 1992, the Union wrote to the Company
concerning the non-employment of three workers as sandwich
makers at the Curragh race-meetings on the 22nd August, 1992
and 30th August, 1992. A meeting took place on the 7th
October, 1992 at which the Company advised that there was a
new system for the preparation of sandwiches. Under the old
system the casual staff would arrive on race day at the
Curragh on the bus from Dublin at approximately 10.30 a.m. and
start work shortly afterwards. With the new system all bread
required is buttered beforehand on the previous evening by
full-time staff and production started at 7.30 a.m. on the day
of racing, again by full time regular staff. Most sandwiches
are then at the point of sale in the snack bars and restaurant
by 12.00 noon. The Company informed the Union that this new
method of operation would mean the sandwich makers would no
longer be required.
2. 3. On the 19th October, 1992, the Union submitted a claim
to the Company on behalf of the three workers for loss of
earnings. On 10th February, 1993, the Union referred the
matter to the Rights Commissioner and a hearing took place on
the 5th May, 1993. In his Recommendation No. BC88/93 issued
on the 10th June, 1993 the Rights Commissioner recommended:-
"that C.H.K. Limited, trading as Masterchefs should
make an ex-gratia payment of #100 each to the
three named employees and that this be accepted by
them in full and final settlement of all claims on
the employer".
4. The Union appealed the Rights Commissioner's
recommendation to the Labour Court on the 22nd June, 1993.
The Court heard the appeal on the 24th August, 1993.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The three workers have been employed by all of the
previous contract caterers in the Curragh Racecourse as
sandwich makers.
2. The change in both the method of operation and time in
which workers would be expected to report for work, with no
transport provided, results in both a loss of employment and
earnings of the workers.
3. Section 4 of the Company/Union Agreement provides that
when casual staff are required, in the first instance they
would be recruited through the SIPTU Employment Bureau.
4. The work is still available but the workers are being
denied an opportunity of employment by the Company.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. There is no requirement for sandwich makers and
therefore employment is not available for the casual workers
concerned.
2. Management reserves the right to operate the business in
a way that it believes to be commercially viable and
operationally efficient.
3. The Company offers employment opportunities in the first
instance to its regular permanent staff.
4. In the event that suitable work becomes available for
the people concerned, the Company is prepared to consider them
for employment subject to the normal procedures.
DECISION:
5. The Court notes that while the Company's present arrangements
do not require the employment of sandwich-makers on a casual
basis, the Company has confirmed that should such a requirement
arise, they will be employed under the terms of Clause 4 of the
Company/Union agreement of 10th March, 1992.
In view of the Company's present working arrangements, the Court
does not find grounds to alter the Rights Commissioner's
Recommendation and therefore upholds it.
The Court so decides.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Heffernan
2nd September, 1993 ----------------
P. O'C/U.S. Chairman