FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : CAMPBELL CATERING (UCHG) (REPRESENTED BY MANAGEMENT SUPPORT SERVICES) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Keogh Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Loss of overtime earnings.
BACKGROUND:
2. The dispute concerns 20 workers who claim that they have incurred a loss in earnings due to the withdrawal of rostered overtime. The matter was the subject of a conciliation conference under the auspices of the Labour Relations Commission. As agreement could not be reached, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 14th of September, 2000 under Section 26(1)(a)(b) of the Industrial Relations Act 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 4th of April, 2001.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The alternative offers made to the operatives clashed with existing roster commitments.
2. The alternative offers made by management were in different locations.
3. The alternative offers made meant unreasonable split shifts.
4. Management have selectively offered one of the workers involved in the claim a settlement of over £500 (634.87 Euros).
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The staff concerned could not have had a reasonable expectation that overtime working would have been required on an ongoing basis.
2. The Company had additional work available elsewhere for the staff.
3. It did not make economic sense to employ more staff when the Company had staff who could carry out this work.
4. The Company have additional hours available on an ad hoc basis to cover for absences and sickness.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court notes that the dominant factor contributing to the loss of hours at issue was the withdrawal from the Company of responsibility for the assimilation and collection of menus from patients. This service was not provided by the Company at the commencement of the contract, nor was it provided by the previous catering contractor.
This supports the employer's contention that it undertook these duties on a temporary basis pending the conclusion of an agreement which would allow the Hospital Authorities to deploy its own staff in the provision of this service. In the circumstances and as the Company has no control over the event which lead to the reduction in hours available, the Court does not consider that this case is in a category which would normally justify concession of compensation of the amount claimed by the Union.
The Court notes that the Company had made an offer of a fixed sum to each employee who suffered loss. The Court recommends that the Company increase its offer to one of £125 per employee affected and that this be accepted in full and final settlement of the Union's claim.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
19th April, 2001______________________
HMCD/CCDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Helena McDermott, Court Secretary.