LCR22755

1.Complaint under Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act 1969.

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 4 April 2023 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on 19 May 2023.


UNION’S ARGUMENTS:

3. 1. The Union states its 4 Members transferred under TUPE with all their original terms and conditions of employment. The Employer states that only a change in their contract will allow a pay increase.

2. The Union state its 4 Members hourly rate has been eroded and they are now on the National Minimum Wage when before they were above.

3. The Union are respectfully requesting the Court find in favour of the claim to maintain the differential in pay for the 4 Members backdated to 1 January 2023.


EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:

4. 1.The Employer state the nature of its contract with its client and labour costs are approved by its client. The four Workers' contracts in question are not favourable in the clients perspective to any further increase in rate of pay.

2.The Employer states an increase for the four Workers in question would create a further disparity among the other transferred Workers who are not party to this claim.

3. The Employer respectfully request the Court to reject the claim.

RECOMMENDATION:

Background to the Dispute

The within dispute concerns the basic hourly rate of pay of four catering assistants (‘the Workers’) employed by Compass Group Ireland (‘the Company’) in Leixlip. The Workers’ employment transferred to the Company pursuant to a transfer of undertakings on 30 September 2017. They maintained their existing terms and conditions which include arrangements in respect of paid rest breaks, overtime premia and annual leave that are more favourable than those that apply to comparable workers who are employed under the Company’s standard contract of employment.

In the period since the transfer of undertakings in 2017, the only pay increases the Workers received have been for the purpose of maintaining them at the prevailing national minimum wage. The Company offered the Workers the option of moving to its standard terms and conditions in return for a higher basic rate of pay. However, the Workers chose not to avail themselves of this option and have therefore not benefitted from the same increases in basic pay received by many of their colleagues.

Each of the Workers engaged in an individual grievance process – albeit under protest – at the request of the Company in relation to their request for an increase in their hourly rate of pay. The grievance meetings took place in mid-April 2023 but no outcome had issued from this process as of 19 May 2023, the date of the within hearing before the Court. The Workers’ Union, SIPTU, had also referred the matter to the Conciliation Service of the Workplace Relations Commission but the Company declined to engage in conciliation.

The Workers are seeking to have the original differential between their basic hourly rate of pay and the prevailing national minimum wage restored. That differential was €2.22 per hour in the case of three of the Workers and €1.22 per hour in the case of the fourth Worker. The Company is resisting the claim as, it submits, to concede the claim would have the effect of creating a wider differential between the overall value of the Workers’ contractual terms vis-á-vis those of their colleagues should there be further increases in the national minimum hourly rate of pay.

Recommendation

In the course of the within hearing, the Parties agreed to engage in conciliation in relation to the dispute under the auspices of the Workplace Relations Commission. The Court, therefore, recommends that the dispute is referred to the Commission in early course and that both Parties redouble their efforts to find a mutually acceptable solution through their engagement in that forum.

The Court remains available to assist the Parties, if necessary, if any issues remain unresolved following the conciliation process.

The Court so recommends.

	Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
	Alan Haugh
TH	______________________
22 May 2023	Deputy Chairman