Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD9392 Case Number: LCR14198 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: GREAT SOUTHERN HOTEL, KILLARNEY - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Dispute concerning double-time for Sunday work.
Recommendation:
The Court finds that the claim is debarred under the provisions of
the Programme for Economic and Social Progress (P.E.S.P.) and
accordingly should not be pursued at this time.
The Court considers there is some merit in the claim and
recommends that it be raised on the expiry of the P.E.S.P.
The Court so recommends.
Division: MrMcGrath Mr Keogh Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD9392 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14198
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES: GREAT SOUTHERN HOTEL, KILLARNEY
(REPRESENTED BY THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION)
and
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning double-time for Sunday work.
BACKGROUND:
2. 1. Approximately five years ago the Union became aware that
certain workers were not in receipt of double-time payment
for Sunday work. In 1990, a claim was made for the payment
of double-time for Sundays. The Union argued that the
double-time payment should apply to all workers, whatever
their status, on foot of the Company/Union agreement of 1979
which states
"3. Sunday Duty
- work performed on Sunday shall be paid for at the
rate of double time."
(Appendix C, Clause C).
The Union also claimed that double-time payments for Sunday
work were made in the past to all categories of workers and
were discontinued sometime in 1988. The Company rejects the
claim. Its position is that the double-time applies solely
to permanent workers.
The dispute was the subject of a number of conciliation
conferences at which agreement was not reached. The dispute
was referred to the Labour Court in accordance with Section
26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. The Court
investigated the dispute on the 16th of August, 1993, the
earliest date convenient to both parties.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Company/Union procedural agreement (1979) is clear
and explicit: double-time for Sunday work. Irrespective of
whether a worker has worked twenty, thirty, or forty hours in
a given week, Sunday work is anti-social and is worthy of
double-time.
2. If a situation arises whereby a worker is asked to work
a short week (i.e. during a slack period) that worker will
not be paid double time if he/she works a Sunday.
3. During the early 1980s, the Great Southern Group
experienced significant trading difficulties. During that
time, and since, the Union and staff have played no small
part in the survival and subsequent success of the group. By
its refusal to pay double-time for all Sunday work, the
Company is ignoring the contribution of the workers.
4. Payslips of workers employed at the Great Southern,
Killarney show that it was the practice to pay all classes of
workers double-time for Sundays. (Details supplied to the
Court).
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Union's claim is for the restoration of double-time
pay to Sunday workers who work less than 39 hours per week.
The Union also claims that this was the practice and that it
was discontinued unilaterally by the Company. The Union only
introduced its claim for restoration of a practice,
'discontinued by management', after management rejected its
original claim because it was cost-increasing and therefore
disbarred under Clause 3 of the P.E.S.P.
2. As demonstrated by its analysis of payslips between 1986
and 1993 (details supplied to the Court), the Company has
provided conclusive grounds for rejection of the Union's
claim that the Company discontinued double-time payments to
part-time staff at a point in the past. The Company had
neither the inclination nor means of doing such a thing.
Great Southern Hotel, Killarney has a long and close
relationship with the Union. It is inconceivable to think
that even had management had such an inclination, that it
would have effected such a change and that such a fundamental
change could have gone unnoticed by a seasoned, experienced
and unionised staff.
3. To concede such a claim would represent an act of gross
irresponsibility on the part of management. It would result
in a grave undermining of the trading position of the Company
and would threaten the Company's policy of extending the
season. No such irresponsible position will be adopted.
There can be no return to the situation which prevailed in
1984 and which led to a major rationalisation of the Company.
As the Government made clear following the rationalisation in
1984, there will be no money to bail the Company out of the
same situation.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court finds that the claim is debarred under the provisions of
the Programme for Economic and Social Progress (P.E.S.P.) and
accordingly should not be pursued at this time.
The Court considers there is some merit in the claim and
recommends that it be raised on the expiry of the P.E.S.P.
The Court so recommends.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Tom McGrath
23rd September, 1993 ____________________________________
M.K./J.C. Chairman
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Michael Keegan, Court Secretary.