FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : POINT THEATRE (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Grier Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Pay and Conditions.
BACKGROUND:
2. The dispute before the Court concerns a claim by the Union for a service-based pay increase for Front House staff working at the Point Theatre in Dublin. Front of House staff is staff by part-time Ushers and Usherettes who are placed on "call-in" lists depending on their stated availability for work. The claim arose as a result of Management's decision to change the operation of the Food, Beverage and Confectionary sales and it's impact on Front House staff. Negotiations commenced and the Company made an offer, part of which was accepted by the Union. A number of issues remained unresolved.
- The dispute relating to the remaining issues 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 22nd October, 2004, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 3rd February, 2005, the earliest date suitable to the parties.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Front House staff have contributed to the Company's profitability over the years in many ways. These include taking a 17% reduction in pay in 1990/1991 when the Company was experiencing difficulties. The staff have regularly taken on additional functions, without prior consultation.
2. Management's position changed on numerous occasions with new demands being introduced at almost every meeting, including possible loss of jobs, totally new job functions, new grievance procedures.
3.The Union side has consistently indicated it's willingness to accept measures which will bring major cost benefits to the Company. However, the Union is not prepared to accept proposals that would lead to the transfer of it's members work to outside contractors and ultimately lead to a reduction in Front House jobs.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Union claim is cost increasing, and may be at variance with the provision of Sustaining Progress. The Company are unwilling to set the trend in market pay rates with further increases which would then be well beyond those of commercial competitor venues with comparable functions and structures, without a credible basis for the widening gap.
2.The Union have lodged an excessive pay claim which the Company might have had reason and a basis to reject, but instead adopted a positive position and responded with proposals to offer pay increases and to meet the needs of the Point Exhibition Company business.
3.The Point pay rate for Ushers already ahead of comparable commercial venues, and any increase is only viable on the basis of concession in full of significant role restructuring measures. The Company pay offer is generous in it's own right, and reasonable in respect of the restructuring measures required.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Union submitted a claim for an increase in pay on behalf of Front of House staff. The Company put an offer to the Union, which included a pay increase in exchange for a fundamental restructuring of the Usher role. While a number of issues were acceptable to the Union, the outstanding issues were referred to the Court for adjudication. The Court notes that rates of pay for Supervisors were agreed between the parties.
The Court recommends as follows:-
Increase in Pay Rates
On recruitment €9.20 per hour
After 2 years and up to 5 years €9.75 per hour
After 5 years and up to 10 years €10.30 per hour
After 10 years €11.00 per hour
These rates to include all increases due under Sustaining Progress and to be further adjusted in January 2006, in line with the national wage agreement prevailing at the time. Implementation date of these increases to be determined by agreement and implementation of all restructuring measures contained in this recommendation.
Meal Allowance
The Court upholds the Company's position and recommends that the allowance should be abolished.
'Dark Days'
The Court upholds the Company's position and recommends that this practice should be abolished.
'Minimum Call'
The Court notes that it was agreed between the parties that the 'Minimum Call' would be the subject of discussion to ensure a more realistic call number depending on the circumstances.
Primary Duties of Ushers
The Court is of the view that the Company's position on the primary duties of Ushers to carry out auditorium duties is reasonable and accordingly upholds its proposal. The Court notes the Union's willingness to embrace new technology.
'Call Ins'
The Court notes that the present "call-in" procedure is inefficient, costly and time consuming and can result in short notice for some people on the panel and that the Union are prepared to explore an alternative method. In order that advance notice is given and that a fair rotation procedure is put in place, the Court recommends that the parties should immediately engage in discussions on the Company's proposals to introduce a new system.
Conclusion
The Court recommends that the Company's restructuring proposals as amended by the above recommendations, including the recommended increases in pay, should be put to a ballot of the Union members as a composite package in full and final settlement of all issues referred to the Court.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
21st February, 2005______________________
CON/MB.Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Joanne O'Connor, Court Secretary.