Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD946 Case Number: AD9422 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: LEISURELAND - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Appeal against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation No. DC 153/93 concerning the pay and conditions of a worker.
Recommendation:
The revised offer of the Company as referred to by the Rights
Commissioner should apply with effect from 26th April, 1993.
The claimant's salary payments should be adjusted accordingly.
Subject to the above amendment the Rights Commissioner's
Recommendation should be accepted.
The Court so decides.
In view of some of the issues regarding relationships raised at
the hearing, the Court would recommend to the parties that, in the
interests of good industrial relations, they seek as a matter of
urgency to reach agreement on any outstanding issues regarding
terms and conditions of employment.
Division: MrMcGrath Mr Brennan Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD946 APPEAL DECISION NO. AD2294
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES:
LEISURELAND
(REPRESENTED BY THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION)
AND
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Appeal against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation No. DC
153/93 concerning the pay and conditions of a worker.
BACKGROUND:
2. 1. The worker has been employed by the Company for 20 years
as a swimming pool supervisor. He was "laid-off" in
September 1992 while the complex was undergoing renovations
and he returned to work on 26th April 1993. Prior to the
closure, the worker was the sole supervisor in charge of the
swimming pool area. As the sole supervisor, the worker was
employed on a 5-day week. The swimming pool was open over 7
days and at night and the worker benefited from an amount of
overtime.
2. A dispute arose between the worker and the Company when
the worker was offered a revised personal contract on his
return to work. The worker rejected the contract as it
worsened his already agreed pay and conditions (details
supplied). The Company argued that prior to the closure for
renovations, the complex was subsidised by Galway
Corporation. On reopening, the complex was charged with
being self-financing and as a result there were changes to
the management structure with the recruitment of two other
duty managers with the same duties and responsibilities as
the claimant.
3. Local negotiations took place and the Company's pay
offer for the manager's position was increased. The
increased offer was accepted by the 2 other managers. The
dispute was referred to the Rights Commissioners service. A
Rights Commissioner's investigation took place on 7th
December 1993 and the Recommendation as set out below was
issued on 21st December, 1993.
"(a) The worker should accept his employer's revised
offer of an inclusive salary of #14,000 p.a. which
should be applied with effect from 11th July 1993
and he should be duly compensated by way of
appropriate adjustments in the calculation of his
salary payments, on days and hours worked, on that
basis, since then.
(b) Leisureland should also pay the worker an ex-gratia
lump sum of #2,500 as compensation for any other
losses suffered, arising from his revised pattern
of working and terms and conditions of employment,
this payment to be in full and final settlement of
his claim."
The worker was named in the recommendation.
4. The Rights Commissioner's recommendation was appealed to
the Labour Court by the Union on 6th January, 1994. The
Labour Court heard the appeal on 1st February, 1994.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The worker has been offered an unsatisfactory personal
contract. This was done by the Company despite the fact
that the worker's wages and conditions were already
covered by a collective agreement negotiated by the
Union. As a result the worker is now suffering a
substantial loss in wages (details supplied).
2. The worker's present salary is seriously out of line
with his earnings in previous years. Since the
reopening of the pool, the worker has undertaken
additional work due to his knowledge of the filtration
system of the pool. The worker has not been adequately
compensated for this.
3. The Union is seeking that the compensation awarded by
the Rights Commissioner be back-dated to 26th April
1993, the date of the worker's return to work. The
Union also believes that the ex-gratia payment is too
low when compared to the considerable loss which the
worker has suffered (details supplied). A higher level
of compensation should be paid and in the circumstances
three times the annual loss is not out of line.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
5. 1. The complex was closed down for renovations in September
1992 after a considerable number of meetings between the
Company and the workers. The workers were informed that
there would be job changes for all workers on the
reopening of the complex. The Company is satisfied that
the workers accepted this position.
2. Under the old arrangements, the worker would have had a
lower basic rate but he would have benefited from
considerable overtime earnings. This will not be the
position because of the recruitment of another two other
managers.
3. Prior to renovation, the complex had been heavily
subsidised by Galway Corporation. The present position
is that the complex must survive on its income from the
general public. The Company is prepared to accept the
Rights Commissioner's recommendation.
DECISION:
The revised offer of the Company as referred to by the Rights
Commissioner should apply with effect from 26th April, 1993.
The claimant's salary payments should be adjusted accordingly.
Subject to the above amendment the Rights Commissioner's
Recommendation should be accepted.
The Court so decides.
In view of some of the issues regarding relationships raised at
the hearing, the Court would recommend to the parties that, in the
interests of good industrial relations, they seek as a matter of
urgency to reach agreement on any outstanding issues regarding
terms and conditions of employment.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
22nd March, 1994 Tom McGrath
J.F./A.L. _______________
Deputy Chairman