FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2001 SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : GRESHAM HOTEL (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Carberry Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Appeal against Rights Commissioner's recommendation IR4572/01/JH.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker has been employed by the Company as a painter/decorator since February 1975. The Union claims that he has a pay relativity with the Construction Industry Federation (CIF) building industry rate for painters (downtown rate) and that this was exclusive of service charge payments. The Company dispute that such a relationship exists. The matter was referred to the Rights Commissioner for investigation and recommendation. The Rights Commissioner's recommendation is as follows:-
"On the basis of theevidence presented, I cannot find any reason to support (the worker's) claim that he previously enjoyed a pay relationship with the CIF rate for all craft painters. In doing so, I am reminding the parties of my assertion at the hearing that the issue raised in respect of a separate employee in another hotel is an entirely separate matter and stands on its own merits and is not related in anyway to this case."
On the 4th of September, 2001, the Union appealed the Right's Commissioners recommendation to the Labour Court under Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. The Court investigated the complaint on the 16th of April, 2002.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. There is a difference of €114 per week between the worker's current rate of pay and the CIF "downtown" rate of pay.
2. The Company has not produced any evidence to demonstrate the worker did not have parity with the "downtown" rate.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. It has always been the Company's contention, documentation notwithstanding, that the claimant never had parity with the downtown rate.
2. The claimant's rate of pay is based on a basic rate of pay and 2.5% service charge.
DECISION:
There is no evidence on which the Court could conclude that the claimant's pay was formally linked to the Construction Industry Registered Employment Agreement rate.
In these circumstances, the Court concurs with the conclusion and recommendation of the Rights Commissioner. Accordingly, the appeal is disallowed.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
2nd May, 2002______________________
HMCD/MBDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Helena McDermott, Court Secretary.