Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD95653 Case Number: LCR15080 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: NATIONAL IRISH BANK - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Claim by the Union for compensation because of the withdrawal of a canteen facility.
Recommendation:
5. The Court, having considered the background to this case and
the submissions made by the parties, recommends that the Company
offer of a lump sum of £400 compensation be increased to £1,200 in
full and final settlement of this claim.
Division: Mr Flood Mr Pierce Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD95653 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR15080
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES: NATIONAL IRISH BANK
and
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim by the Union for compensation because of the withdrawal
of a canteen facility.
BACKGROUND:
2. The dispute concerns ten porters and arose from Management's
decision to close canteen facilities at the Bank's College Green
Branch in November, 1995. The decision was taken because the
canteen was underutilised by workers. The Bank accepted however
that porters used the facility on a daily basis and offered
lump-sum compensation payments of £400 to each worker concerned.
The Union sought on-going weekly payments on a red-circled basis.
Local discussions failed to resolve the dispute which was referred
to the Labour Relations Commission A conciliation conference was
held on the 9th November, 1995. Agreement was not possible and the
dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 20th November,
1995. A Court hearing was held on the 30th January, 1996.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The workers concerned paid £1.20 for a four-course lunch.
They received this subsidised lunch for the total period
of their employment. It was a clearly established
condition of employment. The service of the workers
concerned ranges from 25 to 11 years.
2. Since the facility was withdrawn workers have suffered a
significant financial loss, as a similar meal would cost
them £6.50, if purchasd in local establishments which
amounts to an extra £26.50 p.w. Workers cannot be
expected to absorb that loss on an on-going basis.
3. While the Programme for Competitiveness and Work provided
for no cost-increasing claims there is no provision in
that agreement which allows a Company to reduce workers'
pay or conditions of employment.
4. Porters are the lowest-paid permanent full-time staff.
It is not unreasonable that they should be allowed to
carry the payment on a red-circled basis. The Bank
experienced substantial profits in the past financial
years.
BANK'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. Management was forced to close the canteen facility
because of the low level of usage. On average 20%-25% of
staff in the location used the canteen.
2. The Bank is willing to make a lump-sum payment of £400 to
each worker and is prepared to be flexible on this offer.
Management is not willing to pay an on-going increase.
This is not justified as the normal means of compensation
in such circumstances is by way of lump sum payment.
3. Concession of an on-going pay increase would lead to
repercussive claims from other staff who could also claim
to have suffered a loss.
4. The provision of a canteen facility is not part of the
terms and conditions of employment of any member of staff
in the bank.
5. The claim is cost increasing and precluded under Clause 6
of the P.C.W.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court, having considered the background to this case and
the submissions made by the parties, recommends that the Company
offer of a lump sum of £400 compensation be increased to £1,200 in
full and final settlement of this claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
14th February, 1996 Finbarr Flood
T O'D/U.S. -------------
Deputy Chairman
NOTE:
ENQUIRIES CONCERNING THIS RECOMMENDATION SHOULD BE ADDRESSED TO
MR TOM O'DEA, COURT SECRETARY