Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD89226 Case Number: LCR12448 Section / Act: S67 Parties: CORRIB GREAT SOUTHERN HOTEL - and - IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION |
Claim by the Union on behalf of a head chef concerning the withdrawal of warning letters.
Recommendation:
5. Having considered the submissions from both parties, the
Court recommends that the letters in question be withdrawn with
effect from the date of issue of this recommendation.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Shiel Mr Devine
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD89226 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12448
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: CORRIB GREAT SOUTHERN HOTEL
AND
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim by the Union on behalf of a head chef concerning the
withdrawal of warning letters.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker concerned has worked with the Hotel for 27 years,
17 of these as head chef. On 10th October, 1988, the Hotel served
3 letters on the worker. Two concerned the achievement of budget
targets and a third concerned the serving of a meal to an
assistant manager. The Union regards these as 'warning letters'
while the Hotel sees them as normal internal correspondence. The
Union requested the withdrawal of the 3 letters. The Hotel
declined to do so and on 21st November, 1988, the matter was
referred to the conciliation service of the Labour Court. At a
conciliation conference held on 16th December, 1988, the Hotel
offered to withdraw the letter regarding the assistant manager
and, provided the head chef achieved his food gross profit targets
over a period of 8 months, the 2 remaining letters would also be
withdrawn from his file. This offer was rejected by the Union who
were not prepared to accept anything less than the complete
withdrawal of the letters. Subsequent to the conciliation
conference further discussions took place at local level. As
agreement could not be achieved the matter was referred on 20th
March, 1989, to the Labour Court for investigation and
recommendation. The Court investigated the dispute on 7th June,
1989, in Galway.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Hotel, in its letter concerning the assistant manager,
accused the head chef of unacceptable behaviour in refusing to
supply a meal to the assistant manager. At no stage prior to
the issuing of this letter was the matter discussed with the
Hotel's General Manager. The head chef refutes the allegation
of unacceptable behaviour which, if left unchallenged, could
lead to future disciplinary action. The Union regards this
letter as completely unacceptable and having no basis in fact.
The Union believes that the letter should be withdrawn.
2. A second letter concerned the ordering of stocks giving
rise to questions about the head chef's kitchen management
ability. The Union maintains that ordering policy had been
changed when the new General Manager was appointed. As a
result, the previous discretion open to the head chef no
longer exists (previously he would talk directly to suppliers
about prices, quality and availability etc. and would then
arrange menus accordingly). The new procedure is that the
head chef passes his requirements to the office who deal with
the ordering etc.... Thus the head chef was effectively
removed from the control process.
3. The third letter sent to the head chef concerned the gross
profit achieved in the kitchen area. The Hotel did not have a
proper ordering or pricing procedure necessary to achieve the
margins required. Management appointed an inexperienced
worker to do costings in the kitchen area, resulting in the
kitchen area making serious losses. It is unreasonable for
the head chef to be blamed for management errors. The Union
believes that these letters should also be withdrawn.
HOTEL'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Hotel at the conciliation conference of 16th December,
1988, offered to withdraw the letter concerning the supply of
a meal to an assistant manager. The Hotel is willing to
honour this offer.
2. The Hotel has a number of suppliers of each type of food
commodity and the prices from suppliers vary. It has been
established which is the cheapest supplier at the right
quality level. By ordering supplies in advance of the actual
day an item is needed, one can shop around for the best price.
However, the head chef has been ordering goods on the day
they are required thus being forced to use the dearest
supplier on occasions. This has the effect of cutting down on
the kitchen area gross profit margin.
3. The food gross profit percentages achieved in the kitchen
area have been unacceptable to the Hotel. The food gross
profit margin percentage, which is budgeted for, is a
realistic figure, based upon past performance, easily
achievable targets and industry norms, taking into account the
mix of business and volume of business of the Hotel. The
budget food gross profit for the Hotel is comparable with that
of similar hotels in the group.
4. 4. Food gross profit is a major determinant of the Hotels
overall profitability. Food gross profit percentage has had a
very poor record in the Hotel. For the 14 months to the end
of September, 1988, the budget percentage was only achieved on
3 occasions. The actual loss for the 14 months was #21,825 -
#7,000 of this loss occurred within a 2 month period. To halt
the deteriorating trend the General Manager had to take the
matter up quite seriously with the head chef. This was not a
hasty action, it was taken after consideration of the figures.
Indeed, following the letters to the head chef the food gross
profit percentage has improved considerably.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. Having considered the submissions from both parties, the
Court recommends that the letters in question be withdrawn with
effect from the date of issue of this recommendation.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court,
Evelyn Owens
___28th___June,___1989. ___________________
B. O'N. / M. F. Deputy Chairman