.

TRANSLATION TO BEGIN HERE:

Tips issue governed by job contract

The manner in which waiters' tips are dealt with relates to contractual arrangements between the parties concerned.

The European Court of Human Rights held, by 6 votes to one, that tips included by customers in cheques or credit card payments were too imprecise a basis on which to found a legitimate expectation giving rise to "possessions" within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol 1 of the Convention.

The case concerned the use of tips left by customers for the applicants in the form of an addition to a cheque or credit card payment. Rather than distributing cash equivalents to the amounts left by the customers, the applicants' employer included what was referred to as "additional pay" in their weekly pay slip.

The applicants sued their employer for breach of contract because that additional pay had been counted towards the overall minimum wage they were legally entitled to receive during a six-year period prior to March 6, 1989.

They maintained that that additional pay was money intended for them and held in trust for them by their employer which could not form part of their basic salary. They claimed they had in effect received less than the minimum wage during the period and were therefore entitled to damages.

Article 1 of Protocol 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights provides:

"Every natural or legal person is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions. No one shall be deprived of his possessions except in the public interest and subject to the conditions provided for by law and by the general principles of international law."

The Court noted that it had not been disputed that the legal title to tips paid by customers using cheques or credit cards passed initially to the applicants' employer.

Tips so paid became the property of the employer for the simple reason that the vouchers signed by customers were made out in the employer's name.

It was for the applicants to come to a contractual arrangement with their employer as to how the tips at issue were to be dealt with from the point of view of their wage entitlement. However, they could not rely on Article 1 of Protocol No 1 to base a claim to a higher level of earnings.

For the above reasons, the Court found that there had been no breach of the applicants' right under Article 1 of Protocol No 1.

Before the Court, the applicants had not established that either the applicable legislation or its interpretation by the domestic courts discriminated against them vis-a-vis employees in other sectors of employment covered by that legislation.

The Court therefore held that there had been no violation of the applicants' rights on that basis.
--------
Got to submit by Sun.
Thank you