Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD88619 Case Number: LCR12169 Section / Act: S67 Parties: WESTBURY HOTEL - and - IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION |
Claim for improvement in the basic rates of pay in respect of 99 permanent and 62 casual hotel staff.
Recommendation:
5. The Court has considered the submissions made by the parties
and also the documentation furnished to the Court subsequent to
the Court hearing. From its examination of pay levels in the
various Dublin hotels the Court is not satisfied that an increase
in the claimants' basic pay rates is warranted at the present
time.
The Court has noted the Union's statement that the claim for an
increase in basic pay rates as eventually formulated arose from
management's response to an earlier claim by the Union relating to
service charges paid to their members as outlined in the Union's
letter of 17th November, 1987 to the General Manager of the hotel.
The Court considers that there was general dissatisfaction among
the employees regarding the particular payments made which
represented a substantial loss in their view. The Court
recommends that management should now make ex-gratia payments to
the staff concerned to make good the perceived losses on the
occasions referred to in the original claim.
Division: Mr Fitzgerald Mr Shiel Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD88619 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12169
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: WESTBURY HOTEL
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATED UNION OF EMPLOYERS)
and
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim for improvement in the basic rates of pay in respect of
99 permanent and 62 casual hotel staff.
BACKGROUND:
2. Prior to the opening of the hotel early in 1984 negotiations
took place between the Company and the Union concerning the
conditions of employment and rates of pay which were to apply in
the hotel on opening. In March, 1984, the Union confirmed
acceptance of the terms which were subsequently revised in a minor
way. The original wage structure guaranteed a basic rate of pay
plus an agreed service charge and was based on arrangements in
certain other hotels. In November, 1987 the Union wrote to
Management and expressed dissatisfaction with the level of service
charge payments made to its members on particular occasions.
Management were not prepared to negotiate on this issue however.
The Union then submitted a claim for an increase in the basic
rates of pay on the grounds that these rates had fallen out of
line with those in comparable hotels in Dublin (details supplied
to the Court). The Company rejected the claim on the grounds that
it had entered into an agreement with the Union, and that this had
been honoured in full. As no agreement was reached in discussions
at local level the dispute was referred to the Conciliation
Service of the Labour Court on the 10th March, 1988. A
conciliation conference was held on the 30th June, 1988 but no
agreement was reached. The dispute was referred to the Labour
Court for investigation and recommendation on the 8th August,
1988. A Court hearing took place on the 19th September, 1988.
Various documents were furnished to the Court by both parties
subsequent to the Court hearing.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. In November, 1987 the Union expressed to management its
disappointment in relation to the amount of the service charge
which was paid to employees, which resulted in a substantial
reduction in the employees' wages. At a subsequent meeting
between Union and Management, to discuss the issue no
agreement was reached. The Company later wrote to the Union
stating that it was the sole arbiter on the rates charged and
that this would continue. Becauseof Management's statement
about its charging policy the Union submitted a claim for an
improvement in basic rates of pay with comparable hotels on a
similar wage structure (details supplied to the Court). The
Company however stated that it had honoured its agreement with
the Union in full and that it was not prepared to enter into
negotiations on comparisons of rates of pay with other hotels.
2. Since Management refused to discuss service charge levels
(which are part of the hotels pricing structure) the Union had
no alternative but to pursue the issue of low basic pay. In
this context the Union made reference to comparisons on basic
rates of pay with other hotels with a similar wage structure.
The Union named three other Dublin hotels as comparators. The
Company rejected this proposal, arguing that the Union case
was based on basic rates of pay rather than "earnings," which
were comparable to other hotels. To support the claim for an
improvement in low basic rates of pay the Union claimed that
comparisons were made by Management with other hotels prior to
the opening of the hotel and during those negotiations the
Company's representatives had referred to same. An extract
from a Company letter to the Union in 1984 stated "in light of
certain new agreements already prevailing in the city, we must
be allowed to compete on equal terms." At that time there
were only two hotels in the city to which this statement could
have referred and those hotels were used bythe Union for
comparison purposes in formulating this claim (details of
these hotels and their wage structures have been supplied to
the Court).
3. The hotel opened in 1984 with a wage structure similar to
that applying in the hotels referred to above. At present the
basic wage rates applying in these hotels are much higher than
the rates applying in the Westbury Hotel (a comparison of
basic rates of pay that currently apply in three hotels with a
similar wage structure was supplied for the Court's
information).
4. During the course of negotiations prior to the opening of
the hotel, the Company's representative stressed that unless
there was an agreement on a similar wage structure that the
premises would not open as a hotel. Throughout the recent
protracted negotiations the Union demonstrated patience and
discipline in following the industrial relations procedures
and further demonstrated its confidence in industrial
relations procedures resolving this issue on a fair and
equitable basis. If the Company pleaded, in 1984, that it
needed to compete on an equal basis with competitors how can
it now, in 1988, justify its position in seeking to compete on
more favourable terms than those competitors with whom it
first made the comparison in 1984. The Union contends that it
has a genuine and reasonable claim and should be allowed to
compete on equal terms in relation to basic rates of pay with
other workers, whose rates of pay were originally used as
comparators by the Company.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. Since the opening of this hotel, the Company has honoured
its agreement in full including the distribution of the
service charge collected. Through the agreement both Company
and Union acknowledge the imbalance in the traditional service
distribution. The basic rates of pay plus service charge
points were agreed and in the majority of cases were equal to,
if not better than, other rates in hotels within the Dublin
Hotel Branch. At the time of the negotiations, no comparisons
were made with other hotels as indicated by the Union. This
fact is evidenced by Management's attempt to redress the
imbalance in the service charge distribution in another of the
Company's hotels in 1982. The Union must recognise that the
rates of pay at the opening date of the hotel were better than
those in comparator hotels and at the time they did not choose
to use these hotels as a comparison for basic rates of pay.
The comparisons made with the three hotels mentioned by the
Union must be brought into perspective. One of these hotels
has concluded a three year agreement following a lengthy
strike and in the other two, new wage structures were
negotiated related to manning levels. These hotels were
traditional service charge hotels and negotiations obviously
reflected these enforced changes.
2. In each of the three hotels, negotiations took place under
certain pressures. In the case of this hotel, both parties
negotiated freely and agreed conditions without pressure. It
is worth noting that in the Union's claim, there has never
been any reference to the service charge payments in the
hotel. The Company feels that it is difficult to compare the
basic rates in the Hotel to basic rates in other hotels
without taking into account service charge, and the question
must be asked if there are any disparities at gross pay level.
It is the Company's belief that the three hotels have been
chosen for comparison by the Union on a very selective basis.
The methodology used by the Union to construct this claim
using the average of the three hotels has never been used
before as a basis for constructing rates of pay.
3. While the Union may point out that certain categories of
staff i.e. those in the traditional 12.5% pool areas are not
doing as well as their counterparts in some instances, it is
important to remember that a number of staff in other
categories in the hotel have higher earnings than their
counterparts as a result of the agreement to address the
imbalance.
4. Construction work is at present being carried out at the
hotel, and this will result in an increase of seventy rooms.
The result will be the increasing of service charge potential
for all staff. The basic rate and service charge system
operated in the hotel is fairer to the majority of the
employees in the hotel and provides most staff with earnings
equal to those earned by other staff in the Dublin Hotel
Branch.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court has considered the submissions made by the parties
and also the documentation furnished to the Court subsequent to
the Court hearing. From its examination of pay levels in the
various Dublin hotels the Court is not satisfied that an increase
in the claimants' basic pay rates is warranted at the present
time.
The Court has noted the Union's statement that the claim for an
increase in basic pay rates as eventually formulated arose from
management's response to an earlier claim by the Union relating to
service charges paid to their members as outlined in the Union's
letter of 17th November, 1987 to the General Manager of the hotel.
The Court considers that there was general dissatisfaction among
the employees regarding the particular payments made which
represented a substantial loss in their view. The Court
recommends that management should now make ex-gratia payments to
the staff concerned to make good the perceived losses on the
occasions referred to in the original claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Nicholas Fitzgerald
_________________________
19th December, 1988 Deputy Chairman.
T.O'D./J.C.