Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD95431 Case Number: LCR14948 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: NOONAN CLEANING LIMITED (Represented by THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS CONFEDERATION) - and - A WORKER;SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Payment/Job title/Description.
Recommendation:
The Court is conscious of the need for competitiveness in this
industry, but is of the view that in this case the fact that the
claimant has taken a reduction in earnings and status, in addition
to being required to do cleaning work, is unreasonable. It is
also clear that there is little change in her Supervisory
responsibilities.
Given the particular circumstances of this case, the Court
recommends as follows:-
1. The Company offer of £624 once off payment be increased to
£1,000.
2. As chargehand, the claimant should be exposed to a minimum
amount of cleaning work in this particular post.
3. Claimant should be given favourable consideration for any
suitable supervisory post in the future.
This case, given the particular circumstances, should not be taken
as a precedent
Division: Mr Flood Mr Keogh Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD95431 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14948
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES:
NOONAN CLEANING LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS CONFEDERATION)
AND
A WORKER
(REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION)
SUBJECT:
Payment/Job title/Description.
BACKGROUND:
The dispute concerns the downgrading of the worker from
supervisor to chargehand and a resulting loss of wages.
The Company is involved in contract cleaning since 1978. The
worker commenced employment with the Company in February,
1992 as a cleaner. She was transferred as a supervisor to
Government Buildings in Nenagh, which is staffed by employees
of the Revenue Commissioners. The building also accommodates
employees of the Departments of Agriculture and Social
Welfare.
The worker was responsible for 11 cleaners. Her working week
was 5.30 p.m. to 7.30 p.m. Monday to Friday, with wages of
£110 gross per fortnight. In July, 1994, the Company
announced that it had secured the cleaning contract but that
as a result the worker was to be regraded to a chargehand
with a resulting loss of pay of £12 per week. The number of
cleaners was reduced from 11 to 8. As a result, the worker
had to take on some cleaning duties.
The Union claims that the worker is now doing more work for
less money. The dispute was referred to the Labour Relations
Commission. Two conciliation conferences took place on 10th
May, 1995, and 21st June, 1995, but no agreement was reached.
The dispute was then referred to the Labour Court on 26th
July, 1995, in accordance with Section 26(1), Industrial
Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on
11th October, 1995, in Limerick.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
1. The Company has continuously changed its position regarding
the worker's claim. It informed the Union that no contract
was signed when it began to provide a cleaning service to the
Revenue Department in May, 1992. Under E.U. legislation the
Company had a responsibility to safeguard the worker's
position in the grade of supervisor when it tendered for the
contract in 1994.
2. The Company claims that the Revenue Commissioners had
insisted on reduced manning levels in the 1994 contract.
The Company has since employed another cleaner.
3. The worker is now doing additional cleaning duties and yet
her wages have been reduced by £12 per week. The overall
level of work in the Government Buildings has not been
reduced, nor has the worker's supervisory duties.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
1. The contract cleaning business is extremely competitive with
very low profit margins. There is a wide choice of suppliers
for customers to choose from. When the contract came up for
renewal in 1994, the Company had to cut costs, in order to
retain the contract.
2. The volume of work had decreased by 1994. As a result, the
Company decided to reduce the number of cleaners. It also
changed the grade of supervisor to chargehand as there was no
longer a need for a supervisor due to the reduced numbers.
3. The Company informed the worker of the reasons for her
regrading and reduction in pay. At the conciliation
conference it made an offer of a lump sum equivalent to one
year's loss of earnings.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court is conscious of the need for competitiveness in this
industry, but is of the view that in this case the fact that the
claimant has taken a reduction in earnings and status, in addition
to being required to do cleaning work, is unreasonable. It is
also clear that there is little change in her Supervisory
responsibilities.
Given the particular circumstances of this case, the Court
recommends as follows:-
1. The Company offer of £624 once off payment be increased to
£1,000.
2. As chargehand, the claimant should be exposed to a minimum
amount of cleaning work in this particular post.
3. Claimant should be given favourable consideration for any
suitable supervisory post in the future.
This case, given the particular circumstances, should not be taken
as a precedent
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
25th October, 1995 Finbarr Flood
C.O.N./A.K. ---------------
Deputy Chairman
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Ciaran O'Neill, Court Secretary.