Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD93130 Case Number: LCR14165 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: THE TOWER HOTEL - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Claim by the Union for payment of the 3% increase under Clause 3 of the programme for Economic and Social Progress (P.E.S.P.).
Recommendation:
5. Having considered the submissions of the parties and the oral
evidence presented at the hearing, the Court does not find that a
case has been established which, having regard to the criteria
laid down in the P.E.S.P., would justify a recommendation for
payment under Clause 3 of that agreement.
Accordingly the Court does not recommend concession of the Union
claim.
Division: Mr Heffernan Mr Keogh Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD93130 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14165
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
SECTION 26(1)
PARTIES: THE TOWER HOTEL
(Represented by The Irish Business and Employers Confederation)
and
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim by the Union for payment of the 3% increase under Clause
3 of the programme for Economic and Social Progress (P.E.S.P.).
BACKGROUND:
2. Following the expiry of the 2nd Phase of the P.E.S.P. the
Union by letter dated 7th April, 1992, submitted a claim on behalf
of 55 workers for payment of the 3% increase provided for under
Clause 3 of P.E.S.P. Management rejected the claim. The issue
was referred to the Labour Relations Commission and a conciliation
conference was held on the 28th January, 1993. As no agreement
could be reached, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court for
investigation and recommendation on the 16th February, 1993. A
Court hearing was held in Waterford on the 20th July, 1993.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Hotel is financially capable of paying the 3% to the
workers concerned. Their wage rates are substantially lower
than the average industrial wage. The terms of Clause 3 are
especially applicable to the workers concerned who are on low
rates of pay.
2. The Company recently added a substantial extension to
its premises which has generated a significant amount of extra
work for the employees concerned. They have given increased
productivity to the Company without seeking payment. They are
entitled to payment of the 3% increase effective from 1st
April, 1992 (the due date).
HOTEL'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The industry is presently in recession. The tour
business, one of the hotel's main sources of income, is down
substantially on previous years. The Company cannot afford a
further increase in costs. It is facing keen competition from
guest houses, 'B&B's etc (many of whom are not unionised and
pay very low wages).
2. The Hotel's wage costs are currently higher than
competitors. A further increase in costs could lead to the
seasonalisation of the employment.
3. The extension was essential in the Hotel to remain in
business but there is still more work to be done and a large
debt to be serviced (details of Company accounts supplied to
the Court). Management cannot accept that a special increase
is appropriate in an industry under competitive pressure and
whose market is contracting.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. Having considered the submissions of the parties and the oral
evidence presented at the hearing, the Court does not find that a
case has been established which, having regard to the criteria
laid down in the P.E.S.P., would justify a recommendation for
payment under Clause 3 of that agreement.
Accordingly the Court does not recommend concession of the Union
claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Heffernan
4th August, 1993 ---------------
T O'D/U.S. Chairman