FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2001 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : CAMPBELL CATERING (REPRESENTED BY MANAGEMENT SUPPORT SERVICES (IRL.) LTD.) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Doherty Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Underpayment of 63 cent (50p) per hour to certain employees.
BACKGROUND:
2. The company holds the catering contract at the University of Limerick.
The issue before the Court relates to an underpayment of 63 cent per hour for four part-time staff.
When the workers concerned were originally employed they received 63 cent (50p) per hour over and above the rate for full-time employees. In the early 1990's, as the use of part-time staff became more common within the University, the Company ceased paying the allowance to new part-time staff.
In 1992, agreement was reached that the allowance would be red circled in respect of the existing part-time workers.
The Union states that over a period of time the payment has eroded to the point where the workers concerned are below the hourly rate paid to full-time workers. The Company states that, in1999, a new pay structure was introduced to improve the basic rate for the lowest paid staff, it did not apply to employees on any arrangement which was personal to them.
The dispute could not be resolved at local level and was the subject of a conciliation conference under the auspices of the Labour Relations Commission. As agreement was not reached, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 6th of August, 2003, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 10th of December, 2003.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3.1.Changes to the pay structure within the Company were made without negotiation or agreement with the Union.
2. The Company has not honoured the terms of the agreement as the workers concerned are being paid a lower rate than the full-time staff. The Company should now honour the 1992 agreement.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company is happy to apply the top rate of the new pay structure to the workers concerned for all hours worked but does not accept that they have any entitlement to benefit from their old arrangement and the new arrangements which are in place.
2. In an effort to resolve the dispute the Company made an offer to pay a lump sum of €500 to the workers concerned and agreement to place them on the top point of the new pay structure and end their "red circle"arrangement. This should be accepted by the Union.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has considered the oral and written submissions of the parties. The Court has considered the claim from four workers that they are being underpaid a differential of 63c per hour, which was paid over and above the hourly rate for full time workers - the general assistant rate, according to the Company. The Court understands that this payment was made when they were originally employed due to the fluctuation in their hours of work and was red circled to the claimants in 1992. The Union claims that over a period of time this payment has eroded to the point where the claimants are now paid below the hourly rate paid to full time colleagues. The Company gave details to the Court of the introduction of new standard rates of pay which did not impact on the
general assistant rate, but which were higher, resulting in this rate exceeding even that of the red-circled rate.
To compound this perception of underpayments, errors made in the calculation of payments were identified, these were rectified and retrospective payments made to the claimants.
Having carefully examined the details, the Court is of the view that while the differential had relevance in the 1990's it has now outlived its usefulness and therefore, the Court recommends that it should be bought out by the payment of 2 years its value (€1638) and the claimants should be placed on the top point of the new high rate - €7.62 per hour (July, 2003).
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
7th January, 2004______________________
GB/MB.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Gerardine Buckley, Court Secretary.