FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : DOYLE HOTEL GROUP (REPRESENTED BY THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Flood Employer Member: Mr Pierce Worker Member: Mr Rorke |
1. Appeal against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation 14/98.
BACKGROUND:
2. In 1969, the worker concerned in this dispute commenced employment in the Skylon Hotel as a waiter. In 1979, he left the Skylon and opted to work in the Berkeley Court Hotel. Both hotels are part of the Doyle Group.
In 1980, the Company pension scheme was established and it was open to staff to join provided they had five years service in the hotel in which they were working. The worker concerned was eligible to join the scheme in 1984 but he declined as he claimed his service from 1969 should be recognised.
In 1995, following discussions with the Union, the scheme was opened up to staff who had opted not to join previously, the worker concerned decided to become a member but a dispute arose regarding his previous service.
The Union referred the issue to a Rights Commissioner for investigation. His recommendation issued on the 29th of June, 1998, as follows:-
"I recommend that the worker accept the Company
position on this matter unless it is modified through
Union/Company agreement."
(The worker was named in the Rights Commissioner's recommendation).
The Union appealed the recommendation to the Labour Court in accordance with Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. The Court heard the appeal on the 8th of October, 1998.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The worker believes that as the Company did not allow him to transfer from the Skylon to the Berkeley Court he was treated less fairly than other employees who were allowed to transfer.
2. If he had been allowed to transfer he would have been eligible to join the pension scheme in 1980.
3. The worker is seeking that he be granted service for pension purposes from 1969 and be allowed join the scheme from 1980 and his contributions from 1980 to 1995 be applied to the scheme.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. In 1980, when the scheme was set up, one of the qualifying conditions was that staff would have five years service in the hotel in which they were working at that time in order to join.
2. The Company informed the Union that the rules of the scheme could not be changed to facilitate one individual.
3. The worker became eligible to join the scheme in 1984 but declined to do so.
DECISION:
The Court having considered the matter and oral submissions finds no reason to change the Rights Commissioner's recommendation.
The Court, therefore, upholds the Rights Commissioner's recommendation and rejects the appeal.
The Court so decides.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Finbarr Flood
22nd October, 1998______________________
G.B./D.T.Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Gerardine Buckley, Court Secretary.