FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2001 SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : FORTE POSTHOUSE HOTEL (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Pierce Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Appeal against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation No. IR1778/00JH.
BACKGROUND:
2. The case involves a worker who is employed by the Hotel as a maintenance painter. His claim is for the restoration of a pay relationship with the Construction Industry Federation (CIF) agreed building industry rates of pay, plus travel allowance, loyalty bonus, and service charge worth €44 - €51 per week,. The Company proposed either extending the worker's week by 4 hours or else have his service charge taken into account on the calculation each week. The Union was not agreeable and referred his case to a Rights Commissioner whose recommendation was as follows:-
"Based on the evidence presented at the hearing, I recommend that the worker should receive the CIF rate for his work as claimed in addition to the payments for travel, loyalty bonus and service charge with effect from the 6th of December, 2001, i.e. the date of the original hearing." (Appendix 1)
(The worker was named in the above recommendation).
The Hotel appealed the recommendation to the Labour Court on the 10th of May, 2001, in accordance with Section 36(2) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 18th of October, 2001. The Court adjourned the hearing to allow the parties more time to deal with the issue.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The claim is based on a long-standing relationship between the maintenance painter at the Hotel and painters in the CIF. The Hotel has always made the necessary adjustments in the past.
2. The worker's current pay rate is €4.28 per hour less than the CIF rate.
3. The Union does not accept that the worker's service charge should be used to subsidise his basic rate.
HOTEL'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The claim is cost increasing as the new CIF rates are significantly higher than average hotel rates and, therefore, in breach of the PPF.
2. Although the claimant is seeking the application of the CIF rates, the Hotel believes that the worker has not considered the loss of service charge. Service charge is a recognised component of reckonable pay in accordance with the Minimum Wage Act, 2000.
3. The only viable means of incorporating productivity into the worker's wages is through the extension of the working week.
DECISION:
The Court believes that the question of whether or not the claimant in this case has been aligned with the Construction Industry for pay purposes is one of fact which should be easily ascertainable. However, the information provided to the Court does not address the pattern of the claimant's previous pay adjustments by reference to adjustments in the construction craft rate. The Court also believes that the rate applicable to other craft workers employed by the hotel is a relevant consideration.
In the absence of this information, the Court cannot provide any final decision on the merits of the claim.
Accordingly, when the information becomes available, the parties should again discuss the situation with a view to reaching agreement. If agreement is not reached, the matter may be referred back to the Court.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
11th February, 2002______________________
CO'N/CCDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Ciaran O'Neill, Court Secretary.