FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2001 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : CAMPBELL CATERING LIMITED (REPRESENTED BY MANAGEMENT SUPPORT SERVICES (IRL.) LIMITED) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Flood Employer Member: Mr Keogh Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Restoration of pay differential.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Union has submitted a pay claim on behalf of five members employed as cashiers in the catering unit in R.T.E. The Union states that cashiers were always on a higher rate of pay than catering assistants. It claims that in June, 1999, catering assistants were given a pay increase equivalent to 13% approximately. The Union wants the differential between cashiers and catering assistants restored.
The Company rejected the Union's claim. It stated that the increase only applied to the catering assistants as they were the lowest paid staff in the company. The Company also stated that they no longer had this contract. It has been taken over by Eurest Compass Catering Services (Ireland) Limited.
As no agreement was possible between the parties the dispute was referred to the Conciliation Service of the Labour Relations Commission. A conciliation conference was held on the 8th day of October, 2001, but no agreement was reached. The dispute was referred to the Court on the 8th day of October, 2001, under Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. The Court investigated the dispute on the 24th day of January, 2002.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Company has not treated the cashiers with equity and fairness in relation to the pay increases given to the catering assistants.
2. The cashiers always had a differential of 75p per hour over the catering assistants. The Union wants this differential restored.
3. The Company operated a discriminatory practice by treating the cashiers less favourably than other employees.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. There are no relativities between grades in the Company. The increase given to the catering assistants was designed to address specific issues of low pay and staff retention.
2. The pay increase only applied to catering assistants. The pay increase did not apply to other staff, such as kitchen porters, waiting staff, commis chefs, and others.
3. The claim is cost increasing and is ,therefore, precluded under the terms of the Programme for Prosperity and Fairness (PPF).
RECOMMENDATION:
The increase given to the Campbell Catering Ltd General Assistants in the R.T.E. unit was as a result of an increase applied to the General Assistants across the Campbell Catering Group covered by the Campbell Catering Terms and Conditions of employment.
There is no evidence of any basis for relativity between the claimants and this wider group.
The claimants had opted to remain on the contract of employment they held prior to Campbell's taking over the contract in R.T.E., but management say that they can have the general assistant rate they are seeking provided they take a Campbell Catering contract in total, an option that is open to them.
The Court having considered all of this information does not recommend concession of the Union claim in this case.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Finbarr Flood
7th February, 2002______________________
LW/MBChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Larry Wisely, Court Secretary.