Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD93658 Case Number: AD943 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: HEATHCOURT CLEANING SERVICES - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Appeal by the Company against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation No. ST 299/93.
Recommendation:
Having considered the submissions from the parties the Court is of
the view that the appeal is well founded and should be upheld.
The Court so decides.
Division: Ms Owens Mr McHenry Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD93658 APPEAL DECISION NO. AD394
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES:
HEATHCOURT CLEANING SERVICES
(REPRESENTED BY THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS CONFEDERATION)
AND
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Appeal by the Company against Rights Commissioner's
Recommendation No. ST 299/93.
BACKGROUND:
2. The dispute concerns five workers who are employed by the
Company on cleaning duties at various sites. The workers
were paid on an hourly basis for all hours spent on site
including a one hour lunch break. In June 1993, the Company
advised the Union that it intended to withdraw payment for
the one hour lunch break. The Union disputed the Company's
action and the dispute was referred to a Rights Commissioner
for investigation and recommendation. A Rights
Commissioner's investigation took place on the 15th
September, 1993. In Paragraph 3 of his findings the Rights
Commissioner states "...... the payment of the lunch break
was reasonably well established ...... I do not feel that in
this case Management can fairly remove the anomaly by three
weeks notice of withdrawal only".
On the 2nd November, 1993 the Rights Commissioner issued his
Recommendation as follows:
"In view of my findings in 3 above, I recommend that
each of the claimants receives the sum of #150
compensation for the withdrawal of the paid meal break
which I find to be a very necessary rationalisation by
the Employer".
On the 17th November, 1993 the Company appealed the
recommendation to the Labour Court under Section 13(9) of the
Industrial Relations Act, 1969. The Court heard the appeal
on the 20th January, 1994.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The workers concerned were overpaid by one hour (lunch
break) as a result of an error by the Company. The workers
benefited considerably as a result of this error. No other
workers in the Company are paid for meal breaks.
2. The Company gave the Union three weeks notice of its
intention to correct the over payments. Deductions from
salary for the purposes of correcting such an error do not
constitute unlawful deduction within the terms of the Payment
of Wages Act, 1991.
3. The Union accepted that payment for meal breaks was an
over payment. It sought to have the workers retain the extra
payment. However, this is not possible.
4. The Rights Commissioner was not asked to adjudicate on
the issue of "the discontinuation of the payment of one
hour's lunch break". The issue referred to him was the
"deduction of monies paid in error". The Company rejects
his statement that "the payment of lunch breaks was
reasonably well established ....". Management was not
attempting to discontinue a well established practice but to
correct over payments made in error.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Union acknowledges that the paid meal break was not
an automatic entitlement of the workers concerned. It was
however, part of the workers weekly entitlements, well
established over a lengthy period. The Company withdrew the
payment at very short notice and without adequate discussions
with the Union.
2. The Company's action has resulted in significant losses
to the workers concerned. They are entitled to compensation.
3. The Union put forward suggestions to retain the payment
by way of shorter meal breaks, formal on call arrangements
etc.. The Company rejected these proposals.
4. The Rights Commissioner's recommendation recognised that
the workers suffered a financial loss. The recommendation is
acceptable to the Union.
DECISION:
Having considered the submissions from the parties the Court is of
the view that the appeal is well founded and should be upheld.
The Court so decides.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
25th January, 1994 Evelyn Owens
T.O.D./M.M. _______________
Deputy Chairman
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Tom O'Dea, Court Secretary.