FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : WILLSTAN RACING (IRELAND) LTD T/A WILLIAM HILL BETTING SHOPS (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Doherty Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Loss of earnings.
BACKGROUND:
2. Willstan Racing (Ireland) Limited is a subsidiary of William Hill plc, has 48 branches in the State and employees 240 staff, 90% of whom are represented by the Union. Two members of staff working as Shop Managers entered into special premium payment arrangements with the Company in order to facilitate Summer evening racing programmes which involves working after 6.00 pm for 20 weeks, however the Company decided to terminate the scheme for the 2005 season, thus causing a grievance as agreement concerning compensation could not be found to the satisfaction of both parties.
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 14th May, 2007, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 12th September, 2007.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. Both Workers have long service with the previous Company (Stanley Bet) and potentially could stand to lose substantial earning into the future.
2. The special payment arrangement could be "red circled" to apply only to them.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. In order to standardise income rates throughout the Company's branches, it needs to overturn the old agreement, and stay within the Union / Company agreement.
2. A third individual, who was originally part of this claim, has accepted the Company's offer of twice the annual loss as compensation.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court is satisfied that the two Claimants in this case entered into a private agreement with the Company whereby they received benefits in excess of those provided for by the collective agreement by which they were covered. It is equally clear that all parties concluded these private agreements in the knowledge that they were anomalous.
In the circumstances of this case the Court believes that this anomaly should be corrected on the basis of a buy-out of the payments at issue. The Court, however, recommends that the Company improve its offer to 2.5 times the annual loss as it applies to each individual.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
8th October, 2007______________________
JF.Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to John Foley, Court Secretary.