Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD93704 Case Number: AD9418 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: CAMPBELL CATERING LIMITED - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Appeal by both parties against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation No. BC 422/93.
Recommendation:
Having considered the submissions of the parties, the Court amends
the payment recommended by the Rights Commissioner from #1,250 to
#1,500. The Court upholds the Rights Commissioner's
Recommendation in all other respects.
The Court so decides.
Division: Mr Heffernan Mr Brennan Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD93704 APPEAL DECISION NO. AD1894
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES:
CAMPBELL CATERING LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY MANAGEMENT SUPPORT SERVICES (IRELAND) LIMITED)
AND
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Appeal by both parties against Rights Commissioner's
Recommendation No. BC 422/93.
BACKGROUND:
2. Campbell Catering Limited is involved in the contract-
catering industry. It provides on-site catering services to
clients.
The worker concerned commenced her employment with the Company as
a cleaner in May, 1986, in Raheny House, a home for retired Garda
Siochana. The worker's employment was terminated on 18th July,
1993.
In May, 1993, Campbell Catering was notified by a client (Raheny
House) that they intended to terminate their contract at the end
of June, 1993. The reason for the termination of the contract was
the financial situation of the Retirement Home. This necessitated
the implementation of cuts throughout all operations in order to
make the home operate on a break-even basis. Following,
discussions with the client Campbell Catering entered into a
revised agreement with its client. This reduced the level of
service provided and resulted in the loss of 3 jobs.
In June, 1993, local-level discussions took place at which the
Union submitted a claim on behalf of the worker concerned for
compensation payments of 5 weeks pay per year of service, plus
statutory redundancy entitlements. The Company rejected the
Union's claim, maintaining that it would not pay more than the
statutory entitlements.
The dispute was referred to a Rights Commissioner for
investigation and recommendation. On 29th November, 1993, the
Rights Commissioner recommended as follows:
" Having investigated the matter and having given full and
careful consideration to the points made by both parties it
is my conviction that, while taking on board the limitations
imposed upon the potential generosity of the Company through
its inability to recover anything in excess of statutory
entitlement from the client company, nonetheless equity
requires some improvement on the original offer. I,
therefore, recommend that Campbell Catering pay an additional
#1,250 to the worker and this be acceptable to her in final
settlement of all claims on the employer in relation to her
employment and its termination".
The worker was named in the recommendation.
The Rights Commissioner's recommendation was appealed by both
parties to the Labour Court on 24th December, 1993. The Labour
Court heard the appeal on 18th February, 1994.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. It is not unusual in the catering industry that
compensation payments in excess of statutory entitlements be
made. The Labour Court has recommended ex-gratia payments in
similar circumstances in previous recommendations.
2. The claim for 5 weeks pay per year of service is not
unreasonable, particularly as the prospects for employment in
the future are very limited.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. Management is not in a position to recoup any payment
from the client over and above statutory entitlements, which
the worker has been paid.
2. The Company has already incurred costs in Raheny House
and has had to accept a substantial reduction in its
management fee.
3. It is unrealistic to expect the Company, which has taken
steps to save the employment of existing staff to pay
additional sums in excess statutory entitlements, due to
circumstances outside its control.
4. In the circumstances the Court is requested to reject
the Union's claims.
DECISION:
Having considered the submissions of the parties, the Court amends
the payment recommended by the Rights Commissioner from #1,250 to
#1,500. The Court upholds the Rights Commissioner's
Recommendation in all other respects.
The Court so decides.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
7th March, 1994 Kevin Heffernan
F.B./M.M. _______________
Chairman