INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2001
SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
STAFFORD FUNERAL DIRECTORS
(REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION)
- AND -
(REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION)
Chairman: Ms Jenkinson
Employer Member: Mr Keogh
Worker Member: Mr O'Neill
1. Pay related to Saturday working and lunch money, overtime and 2% due under the Programme for Prosperity and Fairness (PPF).
2. The worker commenced his employment with Jennings Limited in June, 1999. Jennings was taken over by T. Stafford & Son Limited in December, 2000. The worker's duties consist of hearse driving, coffin dressing, muting and removals and burials.
There is in existence a Dublin undertaking trade agreement dated 30th of September, 1970. Both Jennings Limited and the Company were signatories to it. The Union claims that the Company continues to employ and pay rates based on this agreement, although it was due to have expired in late 1971.
In September, 2001, a Rights Commissioner helped to facilitate an agreement, and new terms and conditions were implemented for the worker on the 1st of October, 2001. These included a rate of pay of €13.54 per hour, hours of work for Monday to Friday, and lunch money and payment for Saturday working. The issue of the PPF has been settled. The Union's claim is for retrospection of the new rates to January, 2001, when the claim was first made.
The worker referred his case to the Labour Court on the 21st of March, 2002, in accordance with Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 2nd of July, 2002. The worker agreed to be bound by the Court's recommendation.
3. 1. The Company continues to pay another staff member the rates under the 1970 agreement. These rates are considerably better than those agreed in September, 2001, with the worker although he does the same type of work.
2. The Union has sought to have the issue of retrospection settled since September, 2001, but the Company has refused to negotiate.
4. 1. The worker was on an hourly rate of pay - Monday to Saturday - until September, 2001, so he cannot claim retrospection of an overtime rate for normal Saturday working hours.
2. The Company believes that it has paid in full all Saturday dinner hour overtime and Saturday lunch money.
3. The increases awarded to the worker in September, 2001, amounted to 31% so a claim for retrospection is not justified.
The Court has considered this claim for retrospective payments following increases in pay agreed between the parties on the 26th of September, 2001. The Union sought retrospection back to the 1st of January, 2001, when the claim was first served. The Union also sought payment for lunch money and for lunch hours worked on Saturdays.
In settlement of this claim, the Court recommends that the Company should pay a retrospective payment of €1,000 to the claimant in full and final settlement of this claim.
Secondly, the Court recommends that in order to ensure that there is no further ambiguity between the parties, the Company should clearly set down the arrangements for Saturday working specifying in particular the payment structure for working during the lunch period.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
11th July, 2002______________________
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Ciaran O'Neill, Court Secretary.