FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2001 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : CAMPBELL CATERING - UCC (REPRESENTED BY MSS) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Keogh Worker Member: Mr. Somers |
1. Rates of pay, bonus, service pay.
BACKGROUND:
2. The dispute concerns a claim for a 25% increase in pay, a bonus scheme, and the introduction of service related pay to be applied to Catering Assistants, Kitchen Porters, Catering Supervisors, Bartenders and Bar Supervisors who are employed by the Company in University College, Cork.
The Union claims that permanent Catering staff are paid £5.06 (Euro 6.42) gross per hour whereas casual staff are paid £6.00 (Euro 7.62) nett per hour.
The Company rejects all claims on the basis that it is cost increasing and in contravention of national agreements.
The dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commission. A conciliation conference was held on the 28th of February, 2001. As no agreement was reached, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 25th of April, 2001, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 12th of July, 2001.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. Management has refused to engage constructively on the grievances that the Union have formulated.
2. The Company's failure to attract and maintain staff levels sufficient to satisfy the manpower needs of the site is a reflection of the remuneration package on offer and has placed stress and strain on the existing workforce.
3. Many of the staff employed at University College, Cork have long service, some up to thirty years. This commitment and loyal service is not reflected by the employer through incremental pay scales or service related pay.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The rate of pay is in line with what is paid generally in Campbell Catering, and the Company has increased the hourly rate of pay by 75p (Euro 0.95) per hour.
2. Casual staff have been in receipt of a higher rate of pay but these staff do not have any guarantee of employment or any of the other benefits which General Assistants have as part of the permanent workforce.
3. The Company have paid the 2% under the PPF without seeking concessions and is committed to further increases under the Programme.
4. The rate of pay is appropriate for this particular job and any increase on the rate would have an adverse effect on the company's operation.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Company have submitted to the Court that the claim as presented by the Union is precluded under the stabilisation provisions of the Programme for Prosperity and Fairness. The Court accepts that this submission is correct and accordingly cannot recommend concession of the claim.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
23rd July, 2001______________________
MO'CDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Marian O'Connell, Court Secretary.