FULL RECOMMENDATION
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : MUSGRAVE WHOLESALE PARTNERS (LIMERICK) (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS EMPLOYERS CONFEDERATION) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Marie Worker Member: Ms Treacy |
1. Compensation For Loss Of Subsidised Meals.
BACKGROUND:
2. This dispute could not be resolved at local level and was the subject of a Conciliation Conference under the auspices of the Workplace Relations Commission. As agreement was not reached, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 4 September 2017 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990.
A Labour Court hearing took place on 31 January 2018.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
- The Company's decision to remove the full service restaurant was a unilateral change to it's employees conditions of employment.
- The staff handbook provides for staff restaurants on most sites, with subsidised meals.
- The loss of subsidised meals has a significant financial implication for the Workers.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
- The Company has offered to have food delivered from local restaurants.
- The Company disputes that any colleagues have suffered a loss as a result of the changes to the canteen.
- The changes made to the food options available have been welcomed by the majority of colleagues.
RECOMMENDATION:
The issue before the Court concerns the Union’s claim on behalf of 15 General Operatives for compensation for the loss of subsidised meals. The Claimants are employed in the wholesale section of the Company based in Limerick, where there are 40 workers employed.
The dispute arose following the discontinuance of a subsidised 'full food' canteen service at its Limerick location and replacement with 'self-service' arrangements. The change was announced in March 2015 and implemented in July 2016. The Union seeks compensation for the loss of the full food canteen and fresh hot food for its 15 full-time members which they regard as the loss of a valuable term and condition of employment. The Union is dissatisfied with the manner in which the Company implemented the change and in particular with the lack of engagement with it on the matter. The Union believes that the Company saved €30,000 as a result of the change and it seeks 50% of that saving in the form of a €1,000 compensation payment to each of its members.
The Company disputes that any loss arises and believe that the new arrangements provide a greater benefit. It states that a very small number of the 40 staff at the location used the full food canteen and that the canteen was operating at a significant financial loss to the company. The new arrangements are an ongoing cost and not a saving. The new arrangements involved an upgrade in the facilities, provision of television and internet facilities, microwaves, refrigerators, vending machines as well as free tea/coffee, milk, bread, butter and preserves. Hot food can be delivered to the site if colleagues request it. The Company further states that the new canteen has unrestricted opening hours compared to the previous arrangement which was restricted to8.30am to 2.00pm. the Company stated that the arrangements have been positively received by the majority of staff and align with arrangements at comparable other locations within the Company.
The Court notes that the Company gave sixteen months’ notice of the change to the self-service arrangements, following a survey of its use. The Court further notes the comparison between the old and the new arrangements. Having considered the written and oral submissions of the parties, the Court is satisfied that, on balance, the new arrangements do not amount to a lesser benefit compared to the old arrangements. The Court is further satisfied that the change at issue here is not of such type that should attract recognition through some form of compensation payment to individual staff.
In the course of conciliation at the Workplace Relations Commission, the Company sought to resolve the dispute by way of agreeing to make a payment of €1,000 to a charity and a further payment of €1,000 towards a social event for the staff. This proposal was rejected by the Union.
In order to resolve this dispute, the Court recommends that the Company should make available a sum of €2,000 to be used on a one-off basis to improve the offering in the new self-service canteen, either in terms of improved facilities or additional fare, for the benefit of all canteen users. The Company should determine how best to utilise the once-off sum of money to improve the canteen offering in consultation with the Union. The Court recommends that this should be accepted by the Union in full and final settlement of this dispute.
The Court so Recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
19 February 2018______________________
JDDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to John Deegan, Court Secretary.