Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD88941 Case Number: LCR12306 Section / Act: S67 Parties: BLOOMS HOTEL - and - IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION |
Claim by the Union on behalf of 10 bar staff for compensation for the changes in the licencing laws.
Recommendation:
5. The Court recommends that the management amend its offer to
provide for the payment of one hours overtime to the bar persons
obliged to work the extra hour on Sunday, plus an extra six days
annual leave to be taken on the basis of arrangements to be agreed
between the parties, and that the offer as amended be accepted by
the Union.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr Collins Mr Devine
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD88941 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12306
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: BLOOMS HOTEL
(Represented by the Federated Union of Employers)
and
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim by the Union on behalf of 10 bar staff for compensation
for the changes in the licencing laws.
BACKGROUND:
2. Following the introduction of extended bar opening hours, the
Union and Company entered negotiations on compensation. The Union
claimed the terms agreed in other Dublin hotels, which included
the following:-
Maximum of 78 hours work per fortnight,
1 hour reduction in hours per week, and
Increase in basic pay to qualified and
apprentice bar staff.
The Company in response, on 19th September, 1988, offered 1 hour's
overtime for every Sunday worked, (most bar staff work every 2nd
Sunday), and 4 days extra leave per annum, (2 to be taken on a
Monday). This proposal was rejected by the bar staff at a general
meeting and on 11th October, 1988, the Union put a counter
proposal to the Company as follows:-
An increase in basic pay calculated at the
equivalent of 1 hour per week at double time,
and
6 days additional leave per year.
The Company rejected the proposal and on 25th October, 1988, the
dispute was referred to the conciliation service of the Labour
Court. No agreement was reached at a conciliation conference held
on 29th November, 1988, and the matter was referred to the Labour
Court, on 9th December, 1988, for investigation and
recommendation. The Court investigated the dispute on 9th
February, 1989.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. Following the changes in the licencing laws the Irish
National Union of Vinters, Grocers and Allied Trades'
Assistants negotiated an increase in their 'cleaning-up'
allowance and an increase on their Sunday premium, as well as
a lump sum payment for the public houses bar staff. As a
result of differing work arrangements in the Dublin hotels
where there is no 'cleaning-up' allowance, the Employers
agreed to an increase on the basic rate and a 1 hour decrease
in hours per week. This is equivalent to an increase of #9.07
per week and a reduction of 52 hours per year.
2. If the Company's offer were to be accepted it would only
allow an increase of #9.73 per fortnight and a decrease of 32
hours per year. These workers would have a much less
satisfactory settlement than their colleagues in other Dublin
hotels.
3. The Union would be prepared to accept the reduction in
working time expressed in (annual) days leave terms as opposed
to a weekly reduction in hours.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Union has made reference to agreements made in other
hotels. However, the Company is not only separate from all of
the other Dublin hotels, but it also negotiates on a separate
basis within the Ryan Hotel Group of which it is a member.
2. The Company's offer is fair and reasonable. Bar staff
will work approximately 21 hours extra, on an overtime basis,
per year. The offer also includes the equivalent of 32 hours
off.
3. On the introduction of the extra hour on Sundays, staff
have worked the extra hour and have been paid on the basis of
the Company's offer. Failure to remain open the extra hours
would have resulted in lost business. To-date there has been
no marked increase in drink sales as a result of the extended
hours. Added to this there has been no price increase to
cover the extra hours. As a result the extra hour has
increased costs without any return.