INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004
SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
E.S.B. SPORTS CO.
(REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION)
- AND -
(REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION)
Chairman: Mr McGee
Employer Member: Mr Murphy
Worker Member: Mr O'Neill
1. Double appeal of Rights Commissioner's Recommendation r-041293-ir-06/JT
2. This case concerns an appeal by both sides of Rights Commissioner's Recommendation r-041293-ir-06/JT.
The Union is appealing the Rights Commissioner's Recommendation in relation to a pay increase, which was implemented by the Company and the fact that the employee was required to become a keyholder to the premises without agreement. It is the Union's position that the wage increase was insufficient and not in line with comparators in other leisure facilities. The Company's position is that the increase currently reflects an acceptable rate of pay for the position. In relation to the keyholder matter, Management's position is that this was never an issue with the Claimant until after other issues were raised on her behalf by the Union.
The Company's appeal concerns the Recommendation of the Rights Commissioner that the Christmas Bonus paid by the Company be increased from €300 to €500. The Company maintains that the Christmas Bonus did not form part of the original dispute and, if implemented, would result in unsustainable costs for the Company.
The dispute was referred to a Rights Commissioner for investigation and Recommendation. His Recommendation issued on the 6th September, 2006, as follows:-
"Having considered arguments submitted by both sides, I recommend that the claimant accept the offer of €1,000 backdated to September 2005, I further recommend that the respondent increase the Christmas Bonus from €300 per annum to €500 per annum."
The worker was named in the Rights Commissioner's Recommendation.
On the 17th October, 2006, the worker appealed the Rights Commissioner's Recommendation to the Labour Court in accordance with Section 13(9)of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. The Company appealed the Rights Commissioner's Recommendation on the 18th October, 2006. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 9th February, 2007.
3. 1. The wage increase implemented by the Company is insufficient. The current rate paid, which includes current National Wage Agreement increases, is still below pay levels of comparable workers in other leisure facilities.
2. The employee was given a set of keys of the premises by Management in the event that she was required to open up the facility early in the morning. This was unilaterally imposed by Management and was not agreed by either the Union or the Worker.
3. The worker changed her hours of work from 8.30am - 4.30pm to 6.30am - 2.30pm to facilitate Management in providing an additional service to its members.
4. 1. The Company carried out a survey of comparable employments and offered an increase of €1,000 p.a.Receptionists employed at other leisure facilities perform dual roles such as pool attendants, lifeguards, gym assistants etc.
which warrant a higher rate of pay. The receptionist in this case is not qualified to perform dual roles.
2. The Claimant accepted the role of keyholder with the organisation for six months before handing back the keys on the advice of her Trade Union. At no time did the worker raise any issues with Management in relation to this.
3. The Claimant chose to change her working hours. It was offered to her and she accepted the change. If she had not wanted to change she could have remained on her old shift pattern.
Appeal by SIPTU:-
In the absence of sufficient supporting evidence, the Court's view is that the Union's appeal cannot succeed.
The Court so decides.
Appeal by the Company:-
The Court allows the appeal and varies the Recommendation of the Rights Commissioner accordingly.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
15th February, 2007______________________
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Andrew Heavey, Court Secretary.