FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 Section 26(1), Industrial Relations Act, 1990 PARTIES : INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2012 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 UNIVERSITY COLLEGE DUBLIN - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Haugh Employer Member: Ms Cryan Worker Member: Ms O'Donnell |
1. 1) Loss of Regular Rostered Overtime 2) Buyout of Luxury Items 3) Agreement that staff will have food recorded at till.
BACKGROUND:
2. The case before the Court concerns a dispute between the Employer and the Union on behalf of 18 of its members. The dispute relates specifically to the Union's claim that its members have suffered a significant financial loss as a result of the elimination of regular and rostered overtime following the Employer's decision to outsource its catering functions at the University. The dispute further relates to the Employer's proposed changes to the current practice of allowing these Employees free access to luxury branded items including confectionary and soft drinks. In accordance with a third party independent report into the matter, the Employer has offered a buyout of such items however the Union has rejected the offer advanced by the Employer. In addition, the Employer is currently seeking a change to the system of staff meals not being recorded through the electronic till system. The Union is not agreeable to the Employer's proposal of its members being required to queue and record their meals at the till.The dispute could not be resolved at local level and was the subject of a number of Conciliation Conferences under the auspices of the Labour Relations Commission. At one such Conciliation the Employer put forward an offer to the Union as an attempted resolution of all issues in dispute. The Union rejected the offer made by the Employer.
As agreement was not reached, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the , 2009, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the , 2009.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Union is seeking compensation for the loss of earnings experienced by its members as a result of the loss of regular and rostered overtime and contends that the offer made by the Employer in an attempt to resolve the issue is not acceptable.
2. The Union maintains that the availability of luxury items to its members and the non-recording of food at the till forms part of the terms and conditions of employment protected by the terms of a Collective Agreement with the University.
3. The Union strongly opposes the Employer's proposed changes to its work practices covered by the Collective Agreement.
EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Employer has previously offered compensation to the Union for the loss of regular and rostered overtime.
2. The Employer contends that it is standard practice to record items electronically in order to monitor inventory levels.
3. The Employer maintains that it accepts the recommendation of the third party assessor which calculated the buyout of the luxury items which are currently free of charge to these Employees.
RECOMMENDATION:
The operation of the Respondent University’s main restaurant at Belfield was outsourced to a contractor in 2012, following a tender process. The Respondent and SIPTU entered into a comprehensive collective agreement at that time in relation to the terms and conditions of the residual catering staff who, it was agreed, were to be retained as employees of the University.
The Parties have been engaged in discussions since late 2013 regarding compensation for a reduction in overtime experienced by the Union’s members and in relation to proposals from the Respondent/contractor to change a number of established work practices. The Parties attempted, with only partial success, to resolve their differences at a number of conciliation conferences at the Labour Relations Commission between late 2014 and mid-2015.
Three issues were referred to the Court:
•Compensation for the loss of regular and rostered overtime following the outsourcing of the operation of the restaurant;•The buy-out of the practice whereby the workers were permitted to avail themselves of certain “luxury consumables” such as chocolate and sweetened/flavoured drinks without charge during the working day;
•The manner in which hot meals are served to the workers and the manner in which those meals are recorded for stock-keeping purposes.
The issues were referred to the Court under the terms of the Public Service Agreement (PSA) and the Court’s Recommendation is therefore binding on the parties.
Employer’s Submission
The Respondent is agreeable to compensating the workers for the loss of regular/rostered overtime calculated on the basis of 1.5 times the annual loss as per the PSA agreement.
The Respondent submits that the changes in work practices relating to the consumption and recording of staff meals and the proposed buyout of access to unpaid “luxury consumables” is simply the implementation of terms and conditions of employment that are standard in the catering industry.
Union’s Submission
The Union submits that its members have suffered a “significant loss of earnings” as a consequence of the ongoing reduction in regular/rostered overtime available to them. The Union’s positon is that only a compensation package based on an individual worker’s best year’s overtime would be acceptable.
The Union is opposed to any change in the availability of staff food and beverages consumed by members while at work; the current arrangements are protected by the current collective agreement, in its view.
Likewise, the Union is opposed to having hot meals consumed by members recorded by the contractor.
Recommendation
The Court recommends that the Employer make a single, once-off payment of €1,100.00 to each of the 18 workers concerned in full and final settlement of the entirety of the issues referred to the Court. The Court further recommends that all meals should be served to staff by designated catering staff only (i.e. there should be no ‘self-service by staff) and all meals consumed by staff should be recorded in the manner determined by the contractor, from time to time.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Alan Haugh
30th November 2015______________________
SCDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Sharon Cahill, Court Secretary.