Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD92776 Case Number: LCR14010 Section / Act: S20(1) Parties: AMPLEFORTH LIMITED - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Union recognition
Recommendation:
5. The Court has fully considered all of the issues raised by the
parties in their oral and written submissions and in subsequent
correspondence.
The Court is of the view that if the parties do not seek to
institute procedures for the harmonious settlement of disputes,
hostility and mutual distrust will result which will adversely
affect future relations between the unionised staff and the
management.
The Court recommends therefore that
(1) the Company recognise the Union on behalf of its members,
(2) the parties use the normal industrial relations procedures and
if necessary the industrial relations agencies to progress the
issues raised by the Union on behalf of its members.
The Court so recommends.
Division: MrMcGrath Mr McHenry Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD92776 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14010
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES: AMPLEFORTH LIMITED
T/A ROYAL DUBLIN HOTEL
and
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. (1) Union recognition
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company was acquired by the present management in October,
1989. It employs approximately 70 people and is engaged in the
provision of services and accommodation to both the tourist trade
and the commercial and business sectors. The workers concerned
are employed by the Company as House Assistants.
In July, 1992, the Union wrote to the Company seeking a meeting to
discuss the pay and conditions of the workers concerned. The
Company by letter dated 29th July, 1992 informed the Union that it
had no formal agreement with the Union. On 30th October, 1992 the
Union submitted the following claims:
(1) The implementation of originally agreed rates of pay with
the hotel, updated to take account of all pay movements
to date, or the implementation of the current
S.I.P.T.U./I.B.E.C. Dublin Hotel pay rates and service
charge system agreement.
(2) The establishment of fixed minimum weekly hours of work
together with one week's notice of any change to agreed
work rosters.
(3) The payment of all Public Holidays due in accordance with
the Holidays Employees Act, 1973 and the Worker
Protection (Regular Part-time Employees) Act, 1991.
(4) The payment of double time for all Sunday hours worked.
(5) The provision of suitable and properly maintained toilet
and wash facilities.
The Company refused to meet the Union. The Union referred the
matter to the Labour Court under Section 20(1) of the Industrial
Relations Act, 1969. The Court hearing took place on 12th
February, 1993. Prior to the Court hearing the Union agreed to be
bound by the Court's recommendation.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. Since 1989 management has consistently refused to enter
into negotiations with the Union.
2. Management's refusal to recognise the Union and its
refusal to recognise agreements on pay and conditions in the
Hotel Industry has substantially deteriorated the conditions
of workers employed in the Hotel.
3. By refusing to adhere to established pay and conditions
within the Dublin Hotel Industry, Management are disregarding
the basic rights of the workers they employ.
4. The Company's policy of refusing to recognise the Union is
an essential part of an overall strategy to increase its
competitive advantage and profitability at the expense of the
workers it employs.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. Since 1989, the Hotel has handled all staff related issues
directly with the staff concerned. This continues to be the
preferred option of the Company.
2. The household staff, some of whom are members of the
Union, represent a small proportion of the full staff
complement. The fact that only some of these staff have
joined the Union is indicative of the success of the Company's
direct approach to dealing with staff issues.
3. The rates of pay and conditions of employment of the
workers concerned compare favourably with other comparable
hotels in the city.
4. The Company's experience of dealing with the Union has
been less than positive. On occasions the Union appears to
have deliberately fabricated problems in order to make
discussions appear necessary.
5. The Company will not recognise this Union for the purposes
of negotiating the pay and conditions on behalf of all the
staff when only a minority of the staff in one department are
in fact members.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court has fully considered all of the issues raised by the
parties in their oral and written submissions and in subsequent
correspondence.
The Court is of the view that if the parties do not seek to
institute procedures for the harmonious settlement of disputes,
hostility and mutual distrust will result which will adversely
affect future relations between the unionised staff and the
management.
The Court recommends therefore that
(1) the Company recognise the Union on behalf of its members,
(2) the parties use the normal industrial relations procedures and
if necessary the industrial relations agencies to progress the
issues raised by the Union on behalf of its members.
The Court so recommends.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Tom McGrath
__________________
26th March, 1993 Deputy Chairman.
F.B./J.C.
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Fran Brennan, Court Secretary.