FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : WILLIAM HILL LTD (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Hayes Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Mr Nash |
1. Hearing arising from LCR19790
BACKGROUND:
2. The case before the Court concerns a claim by the Union on behalf of its members in relation to proposed changes to terms and conditions of employment. The dispute was the subject of Labour Court Recommendation LCR19790 which recommended that the parties enter into discussions facilitated by an independent chairman. As agreement was not reached on all aspects of the Company's proposals, the dispute was referred back to the Labour Court on the 30th September, 2010, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 3rd March 2011, the earliest date suitable to the parties.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. There are strong feelings of fear and mistrust amongst employees with regard to the Employer's reasons for seeking such changes to terms and conditions.
2. The Employer has issued each employee with a letter guaranteeing their current terms and conditions, however, the Union contends that this is not a strong enough assurance for employees.
3. The Union is seeking an increased compensation package in the case of promotion under the proposed terms and conditions. This includes the introduction of a third year covering thirty percent of any loss in pay incurred through promotion.
EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company is currently operating at a loss and is not in a financial position to concede any cost-increasing claim.
2.The aim of the cost-saving measures proposed by the Company is to preserve employment and to protect the interests of remaining staff going forward.
3.The Company is facing the imminent closure of additional shops and the redundancies created as a result of these closures. It is crucial that the proposed changes are implemented without further delay and further cost to the Company.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has carefully considered the submissions of both parties in this case.
The Court is satisfied that the assurances sought by the union on the protection of work patterns are comprehensively and adequately addressed in the proposals of 25th May 2009 put to both parties by the Court-appointed Facilitator.
The Court is also satisfied that the Facilitator's proposals on compensation for loss of earnings that may occur on promotion are fair and balanced and should be accepted by both sides.
Accordingly the Court recommends that parties should, without further delay, take the necessary steps to resolve this dispute in accordance with the proposals set out by the LRC dated 8th March 2010 as amended by the Court-appointed Facilitator in his recommendation dated 25th March 2010.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Brendan Hayes
11th March 2011______________________
SCDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Sharon Cahill, Court Secretary.