FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : FINNERAN CATERING LIMITED (REPRESENTED BY THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr McHenry Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Dispute concerning the hourly rate of pay.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company provides catering services to Apple Computers in Cork and employs approximately 20 workers. In 1993, Apple introduced a new shift system comprising of a 36 hour 3 day week. The parties and the Management of Apple agreed that the 12 employees working the 36 hour week would continue to retain the 39 hour rate of pay.
In 1997 Apple announced a reorganisation of its canteen services and as a result of this the workers had to return to a 39 hour week. The Company maintained that the hourly rate should then revert to the 39 hours rate of pay (£4.02). The Union claimed that the workers should be paid the hourly rate that resulted from the 36 hour week (£4.46). The dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commission and a conciliation conference was held on the 11th September, 1997. Agreement was not possible. The dispute was referred to the Labour Court by the Labour Relations Commission on the 5th February, 1998. A Court hearing was held in Cork on the 11th March, 1998.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The hourly rate of £4.46 was established in 1993 and remained the agreed and recognised hourly rate. In April, 1997 the Company arbitrarily reduced the workers' hourly rate of pay by .44p per hour without the consent of, or consultation with the workers or the Union.
2. The Company had no reason to reduce the workers' rates of pay. Its action was in breach of the Company/Union agreement relating to prior consultation/negotiation. The Company by its action devalued the workers' contribution to the employment, snubbed normal procedures, and workers' rights to a fair wage.
3. There is no reason to resort to such tactics in view of the fact that negotiations are ongoing on the Partnership 2000 Agreement.
4. The Union is claiming the retrospective payment of 44p per hour in respect of the workers concerned, from 4th April '97 to 12th March 1998 This amounts to £651.42 per worker for 3 workers. The Union is claiming £913.42 for 9 workers this also includes the claim for compensation in respect of the reduction in the hourly overtime premium rate of pay. (Details supplied to the Court).
5. The Company has enjoyed very profitable years and because of a recent upturn in Apple Computers' business there has been an increase in the workforce to cater for the additional members using the canteen facilities.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company cannot concede the Union's claim because it claims a specific hourly rate from Apple for employees based on hours worked only (details to the Court).
2. If the 36 hour rate is implemented for the workers in question that amounts to an 11% increase and the cost to the Company would be £9,551.27 per annum. Apple Computers have stated that they will not cover such a rate of pay. The Company could not sustain this deficit and it would result in the closure of the Company over the next number of months resulting in a loss of employment for all workers.
3. The claim is cost-increasing and precluded by Partnership 2000. Concession of the claim would have serious repercussive effects for the other staff.
4. The rate of pay being claimed was specific to a particular shift which is now gone because of a change in Apple Computers requirements.
5. The Company has always treated its workers fairly and pays a competitive rate of pay.
RECOMMENDATION:
The new standard working hours of the eleven workers associated with this claim will reduce by 12.5%, from 36 to 31.5. The Court believes that their previous weekly rate of pay should by adjusted pro-rata (i.e., a reduction of 12.5%). The rate thus derived should be retained by them on a personal to holder basis.
This recommendation is intended to apply to the circumstances of this case only and without creating any precedent for future changes in working hours.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
31st March, 1998______________________
T.O'D./S.G.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Tom O'Dea, Court Secretary.