FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : ST.PATRICK'S COLLEGE - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Flood Employer Member: Mr Pierce Worker Member: Mr Rorke |
1. Unilateral imposition of new conditions of employment and loss of earnings arising from this.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Union is claiming compensation for loss of earnings on behalf of three workers who are employed as night staff in the private area of the College Catering Department. They work two and a half hours per night, seven days per week and their duties include the preparation and serving of tea for clerical students, washing dishes and cleaning the area involved. They also steep pots overnight which are then washed the following morning.
Traditionally most members of the catering staff are laid off during the summer months. However, due to the use of the College as a conference centre during the summer, an increased amount of casual work has become available. The workers concerned, in addition to other staff, were offered summer work for 1996 which included the cleaning of pots. The claimants refused the work on the grounds that pot cleaning was not part of their duties and that Management was attempting to change established work practices without negotiation.
Local discussions failed to resolve the issue and the parties agreed to refer the matter to an independent arbitrator, Mr. Bob Clarke, for private arbitration. His recommendation (details supplied to the Court) which issued on the 15th August, 1996 was accepted by the College but was rejected by the Union. The dispute was then referred to the Labour Relations Commission and a conciliation conference was held on the 12th November, 1996. As agreement could not be reached at conciliation the dispute was referred to the Labour Court in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. The Court investigated the dispute on the 10th April, 1997, the earliest date suitable to the parties.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The workers have a long-standing and explicit agreement that their range of duties does not include pot cleaning. Management has tried to impose new conditions of work without prior negotiation or consultation.
2. The workers have given long and faithful service to the College for up to 23 years and have never cleaned pots during previous summer work. A kitchen porter is employed to clean pots for functions in the College, as is customary throughout the catering industry.
3. The College employed other casual waitresses during the summer of 1996 who refused to clean pots, yet "locked out" the claimants from work that they had carried out for many years. The workers deserve to be compensated for the losses incurred. Management should also acknowledge that pot cleaning does not form part of their duties, either during term time or outside of it.
EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The College rejects the Union's contention that the claimants were "effectively locked out". They were offered the casual work that was available and refused to accept it.
2. Other casual staff who were employed during the conference season were required to wash pots. It would have been inappropriate from an operational and human relations point of view to exclude three employees from this duty.
3. Reasonable flexibility is an essential requirement if the College is to continue to employ night staff in this area. The Court is requested to recommend that pot cleaning forms part of the normal duties of night staff, both during term time and during the conference season.
RECOMMENDATION:
Given the custom and practice that operated in relation to this work over some years the Court's view is that an agreement effectively existed.
Therefore, as the College wishes to change this agreement, negotiations should commence on arrangements to operate for conference season 1997, and separately for any proposed change during term time.
These negotiations should deal with any claim for compensation.
If the parties fail to agree the Court will, on request, make a recommendation on these issues.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Finbarr Flood
1st May, 1997______________________
D.G./D.T.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Dympna Greene, Court Secretary.