Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD9384 Case Number: LCR14075 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: RYANS IRISH HOTELS LIMITED - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Claim by the Union, on behalf of 66 workers, for payment of the 3% local bargaining increase under Clause 3 of the Programme for Economic and Social Progress (P.E.S.P.).
Recommendation:
5. The Court having considered the views expressed by the parties
recommends that the parties enter into negotiations under Clause 3
(P.E.S.P.), those negotiations to take full account of the needs
of the Company and the contribution of the employees to Company
requirements.
Division: MrMcGrath Mr Brennan Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD9384 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14075
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES: RYANS IRISH HOTELS LIMITED
T/A THE LIMERICK RYAN HOTEL
and
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim by the Union, on behalf of 66 workers, for payment of
the 3% local bargaining increase under Clause 3 of the Programme
for Economic and Social Progress (P.E.S.P.).
BACKGROUND:
2. The workers concerned are employed as clerical, catering and
maintenance staff. The Union's claim was submitted in May, 1992.
At subsequent local discussions Management rejected the claim.
The dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commission and a
conciliation conference was held on the 13th January, 1993. As no
agreement was reached the dispute was referred to the Labour Court
by the Labour Relations Commission on the 1st January, 1993. A
Court hearing was held in Limerick on the 24th March, 1993.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The workers concerned are dedicated and diligent. They
have given maximum co-operation and productivity to the hotel
and this fact is recognised by Management. Their wage rates
approximate to those applying under the Hotels Joint Labour
Committee (J.L.C.) which are low basic wages. They have only
received overtime payments in recent years. They receive no
service charge payments (as do their colleagues in Dublin
Hotels), and less bonus than workers in other hotels in the
Group. The 3% increase is primarily aimed at and is
particularly appropriate to these workers.
2. The Hotel is successful and profitable. It is part of a
major Hotel Group which has recently extended its operations
to Europe. The present down-turn in the industry is
temporary. Other hotels in the region, despite reduced
business, have provided very good sick pay schemes in lieu of
the 3% increase. The Union's claim is not excessive, and in
an effort to facilitate the hotel, is prepared to accept
payment by way of two instatements of 1.50%.
HOTEL'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. Clause 3 of the P.E.S.P. states "exceptionally employers
and unions may negotiate further changes in rates of pay etc."
The Hotel's performance is not exceptional and profits have
declined in 1992 and in the early part of 1993 (details
supplied to the Court). The situation is further exacerbated
by an increase in V.A.T. from 10 to 12.50%. The buoyancy does
not exist in present markets to pass on any increases to
customers.
2. The Hotel is presently considering the introduction of a
pension scheme and costings have been obtained. It is hoped
to introduce the scheme in May, 1993 and its introduction will
increase costs over and above the basic increases provided for
under the P.E.S.P.
3. The 3% may have been paid to workers in industries where
labour costs form only a small proportion of overall
production costs. This should not be viewed as a precedent to
be applied to the Hotel industry which is presently in
recession and where labour costs are high. The 3% increase
has not been paid in any hotel in the area and has also been
rejected by Dublin hotels.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court having considered the views expressed by the parties
recommends that the parties enter into negotiations under Clause 3
(P.E.S.P.), those negotiations to take full account of the needs
of the Company and the contribution of the employees to Company
requirements.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Tom McGrath
___________________
12th May, 1993. Deputy Chairman
T.O'D./J.C.
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Tom O'Dea, Court Secretary.