FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : JURYS DOYLE HOTEL GROUP (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr McGee Employer Member: Mr Carberry Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Dispute concerning the payment of Sunday premium.
BACKGROUND:
2. The dispute concerns four workers who are employed by the Company as Security Officers at its Ballsbridge property. The Union's claim is for the payment of the Sunday premium to these workers. Management rejected the claim. The dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commission. A conciliation conference was held but agreement was not reached. The dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 4th October, 2004 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Court hearing was held on the 26th January, 2005.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Company/Union agreement provides that workers whose rosters require them to work on an every second Sunday basis shall be paid an additional 10% of basic pay every week - Sunday Equivalent Premium. Workers in other grades in the hotel receive the Sunday premium as a separate and distinct additional payment to their basic salary.
2. The Union cannot accept the Company position that the claimants' rate of pay is all inclusive and includes Sunday premium. The Company has not been able to substantiate this claim, other than to say that it is so. This is not acceptable to the Union as it does not establish that a reasonable allowance for Sunday working is provided for in the case of the claimants.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. It is stated in the claimants' contracts of employment that "your rate of pay covers all premia relating to shift work, night work, Public Holidays and Sundays". Workers were made aware of this when they commenced employment with the Company. The employees signed their contracts of employment freely and of their own volition.
2. The claimants' rate of pay and conditions are very competitive within the security industry.
3. The claim is cost increasing and is precluded under the Sustaining Progress Agreement.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court, having taken into account the submissions of the parties, is of the view that this claim is a cost-increasing one of the type precluded under clause 1.5 of the Private Section Pay Provisions of "Sustaining Progress" and which cannot, therefore, succeed. The Court recommends accordingly.
The Court would also advise in the interest of good practice that premia for Sunday working be separately reflected within pay rates.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Raymond McGee
18th April, 2005______________________
TOD/BRDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Tom O'Dea, Court Secretary.