Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD95610 Case Number: LCR14985 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: SCANDINAVIAN SERVICE PARTNER (IRL.) LIMITED (Represented by THE MANAGEMENT SUPPORT SERVICES (IRL.) LIMITED) - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
(1) Redundancy package for 6 cleaners. (2) Lead-in payment for supervisors.
Recommendation:
Having considered the submissions from the parties, the Court
recommends as follows on the two items in dispute.
(1) Redundancy
In all the circumstances, the Court considers that the
Company should agree to pay the redundancy package to the 6
claimants.
(2) Lead-in payment
The Court does not recommend concession of this claim.
Division: Ms Owens Mr McHenry Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD95610 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14985
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES:
SCANDINAVIAN SERVICE PARTNER (IRL.) LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE MANAGEMENT SUPPORT SERVICES (IRL.) LIMITED)
AND
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
(1) Redundancy package for 6 cleaners.
(2) Lead-in payment for supervisors.
BACKGROUND:
The Company operates the catering and bar concession in
Dublin Airport. In 1993, the Company decided that a number
of major changes were necessary if it was to remain
competitive. It began negotiations with the Union in early
1994, including discussions on redundancies and changes in
conditions which took place separately from other issues.
The proposals on redundancies were accepted by the workers in
early February, 1994. One of the Company's proposals was
that cleaning duties would be carried out by the general
catering assistants. There was also agreement that the
Company could hire casual workers to cover for cleaners who
had found alternative employment. The redundancy terms would
not apply to these casual workers. The other issues were
discussed at local level and at a conciliation conference
with the Labour Relations Commission. The Union agreed to
recommend the Company's proposals. The proposals, however,
were rejected by the staff on 7th March, 1995, and the
dispute was referred to the Labour Court. Labour Court
Recommendation No. LCR 14455 was issued on 27th May, 1994.
The Recommendation was rejected by the staff.
Following further negotiations on 12th November, 1994, the
Company proposed revised terms which were accepted by the
staff. Subsequent to the agreement, the Union sought payment
of redundancy terms for 6 workers who had already left the
Company voluntarily. The Union is claiming that the
redundancy terms agreed in February, 1994, still applied.
The Company maintains that, following the staff's rejection
of the overall proposals, on 7th March, 1995, the redundancy
agreement no longer applied. The Union also lodged a claim
on behalf of the supervisory staff for the application of a
lead-in payment which was made to the general catering
assistants who were required to take on additional cleaning
duties. The Company rejected the claim.
The dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commission
and a conciliation conference took place on 10th April, 1995.
No agreement was reached and the dispute was referred to the
Labour Court on 23rd October, 1995, in accordance with
Section 26(1), Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour
Court hearing took place on 17th November, 1995.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
1. Redundancy package for cleaners
(a) In conversations with the Labour Relations Commission (LRC)
in March, 1994, the Union was assured that the redundancy
package would apply to the cleaners when the overall
re-structuring was agreed. This was confirmed by the
Company's Personnel Manager. As a result of these
assurances, the workers accepted the Company's proposals in
November, 1994.
(b) The Company is profitable and has been very successful in the
last few years. The cost of honouring the agreement would be
£6,300 in total for the 6 cleaners.
2. Lead-in payment for supervisors
At no time during discussions with the LRC did the Company
indicate that the lead-in payment would not apply to the
supervisors. The supervisors will take part in directing the
new cleaning operations and will be responsible for the
cleaning standards.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
1. Redundancy payment for 6 cleaners
Following the rejection of the overall proposals in March,
1994, there was no agreement between the parties until
November, 1994. At that stage, the 6 cleaners had left the
Company voluntarily. There was, therefore, no agreement that
they would be entitled to a redundancy payment. The issue of
the cleaners was not settled, as the Union maintains. The
Union is basing its case on the original commitment given by
the Company in early February, 1994.
2. Lead-in payment for supervisors
It was agreed in November, 1994, that a lead-in payment would
be made to general catering staff who were required to take
additional light cleaning duties. The supervisors were never
included in these proposals as they were not required to take
on any cleaning duties. The supervisors themselves never
made any mention of a claim during discussions with the
Company.
RECOMMENDATION:
Having considered the submissions from the parties, the Court
recommends as follows on the two items in dispute.
(1) Redundancy
In all the circumstances, the Court considers that the
Company should agree to pay the redundancy package to the 6
claimants.
(2) Lead-in payment
The Court does not recommend concession of this claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
30th November, 1995 Evelyn Owens
C.O.N./A.K. -------------
Chairman
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Ciaran O'Neill, Court Secretary.