FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : LADBROKES (IRELAND) LIMITED (REPRESENTED BY JOHN HORGAN) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Changes to Premium Payments.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company operate 284 betting shops throughout the country. In December, 2008, it announced its intention to change premium payments for Sunday working and Public Holidays. The reason given was for the proposed additional 1% turnover tax (from 1% to 2%) ratified in the Budget and due to take effect on 1st May, 2009. The changes were to take place on 17th March, 2009, for the Public Holidays where payment was to go from treble time to double time or time and a half plus a day in lieu, and 1st May, 2009, for Sunday working where it changed from double time to time plus one half. The Union's case is that there was no consultation between the parties before the changes were introduced.
The dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commission (LRC) and a conciliation conference took place. As the parties did not reach agreement, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 4th December, 2009, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 19th May, 2010.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Company introduced the changes on the basis that a further 1% betting tax would be introduced from 1st May, 2009. To date the tax has not been applied and the Company continues to be highly profitable.
2. The Company is not entitled to make unilateral changes which affect the members' wages. Despite this the Union has adhered to agreed dispute resolution procedures.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company believed that it had no choice but to introduce the changes if it were to maintain the business and preserve jobs. It had to close six of its poorest performing shops in 2009. Failure to implement the changes would have meant the closing of a further 35 shops in 2009/2010.
2. Whilst the 1% additional tax has not taken place it has not definitely been withdrawn and could cost the Company €5.3 million in additional turnover tax annually. It experienced a profit loss of 90% in 2009.
RECOMMENDATION:
The issue before the Court concerns the Union’s claim for the restoration of terms and conditions of employment which were changed in 2009. The Union maintained that the changes were unilaterally introduced without agreement.
These changes altered the premium payments paid for working on Public Holidays with effect from 17th March 2009 and on Sundays /late evenings with effect from 1st May 2009.
The Company stated that the changes were necessary in order to preserve employment.
Having considered the oral and written submissions of both parties, the Court notes that the changes were imposed without agreement and resulted in loss of earnings for the Claimants concerned. The Court recommends that the terms and conditions for the premium payments concerned should be restored with retrospective effect to the date they were unilaterally altered. Furthermore, the Court recommends that the parties should enter into meaningful discussions to achieve agreement on dealing with the Company’s concerns regarding the preservation of employment. Such discussions should be completed as expeditiously as possible.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
28th May, 2010______________________
CONDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Ciaran O'Neill, Court Secretary.