FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2001 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : CISTERCIAN COLLEGE, ROSCREA (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Pierce Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Loss of earnings.
BACKGROUND:
2. Mount St. Joseph consists of an abbey, College, guesthouse and farm all run by the Cistercian Order. The College is a 7-day boarding school. The Union's claim concerns 2 workers and their alleged loss of earnings in relation to the following: lay-off periods, baking day, breakfast pay and summer camp. Worker A (Ms. O M) is claiming a total loss of €1,218.75 and Worker B (Ms. C) a loss of €1,635.73. Briefly, the workers are claiming the following:
Breakfast pay: The workers were paid premium payments on certain occasions for working between 7.00 a.m. and 8.30 a.m. The Union claims that this was removed without consultation.
Baking day: Both claimants worked on Thursday afternoons as "baking day". In February, 2001, they were told that this was to be discontinued. Following a meeting, Worker B is now allowed to bake on Thursday afternoons but worker A remains at a loss.
Lay-off periods: The workers are claiming payment for a number of lay-offs over the last year which they maintain did not happen in previous years.
Summer camp: The summer camp was introduced in 1998 for 3 years and consisted of 3 six-week periods until 2000. In 2001, there was only 1 three-week period and the Union is claiming a loss of earnings.
(The Union supplied details of all losses of earnings to the Court.)
The dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commission and a conciliation conference took place. At the conference, an offer of €380.92 was made to Worker A but no offer was made to Worker B. The offer was rejected and the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 4th of December, 2001, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 12th of February, 2002, in Clonmel.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The College unilaterally changed the workers' conditions of employment.
2. The loss to the workers has been considerable. They did not claim social welfare payments for the various lay-offs on the basis that it was a departure from their normal work patterns.
3. Both claimants have continued to act in a professional manner despite management's actions.
COLLEGE'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Union's initial claims were considerably less than the present ones.
2. The College dispensed with the baking day as it was no longer deemed necessary, and staff were advised several months earlier. Worker A now works the same amount of hours on "hot teas" on Friday afternoons as she did on Thursday afternoons and has suffered no loss.
3. The College has always reserved the right to temporarily lay off staff when work is not available.
4. It has been a long established practice that workers can avail of social welfare payments whilst on temporary lay-off. In this case the workers were told by the Union not to claim social welfare.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court accepts that during College closures it is a well-established practice that workers are temporarily laid off. The Court recommends that every effort should be made by the College to minimise periods of lay-off and provide adequate notice of closures.
Having considered all aspects of these claims, the Court is of the view that there is no merit in the claim for loss of earnings due to lay-off periods. However, the Court recommends that the goodwill gesture made by the College at the conciliation conference should form the basis of a settlement to the claims before the Court.
Therefore, the Court recommends that Worker A should be paid a once-off lump sum of €500 and Worker B should be paid a lump sum of €150. These payments should be deemed to include the outstanding breakfast payments and should be accepted in full and final settlement of all outstanding claims.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
14th March, 2002______________________
CON/MBDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Ciaran O'Neill, Court Secretary.