Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD93603 Case Number: LCR14382 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: MOUNT HERBERT LIMITED - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Dispute concerning the pay and conditions of 13 workers.
Recommendation:
The Court wishes to state that on the basis of the evidence
submitted it is satisfied that this establishment is not an hotel
and accordingly comparison of rates of pay with hotel rates are
not valid.
Having considered the submissions from the parties, and the
additional information supplied the Court recommends:-
(a) The proposals set out in letter dated 7/10/93 items 1-17
inclusive be accepted by the parties as a reasonable way
to resolve the dispute. Taking into account the
Company's trading position, the Court recommends that
the date in item 17 be altered to 1/9/94. Accordingly
items 1-16 will fall to be implemented on 1/9/94 with
the exception of Clause 8 where the operative date will
be 1/10/94.
and
(b) Items 18 to 21 inclusive be subject of further
negotiations when (a) above is implemented.
Division: Ms Owens Mr McHenry Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD93603 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14382
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES: MOUNT HERBERT LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS CONFEDERATION)
AND
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning the pay and conditions of 13 workers.
BACKGROUND:
2. 1. The Company is a privately owned guest house with 120
bedrooms, together with a further 20 in an annex. It employs
65 full and part-time workers of which 13 are represented by
the Union.
2. On 4th June, 1993, the Company granted the Union
recognition and negotiations began on a range of issues. No
progress was made at local meetings and the dispute was
referred to the Labour Relations Commission.
3. Conciliation conferences were held on 15th and 28th
September, 1993. On 7th October, the Industrial Relations
Officer wrote to both parties with proposals (details
supplied) which had been developed at conciliation and which
were recommended for acceptance by both parties.
4. The Industrial Relations Officer's proposals were
accepted by the Union but rejected by the Company. No
further progress was possible. On 27th October, 1993 the
dispute was referred to the Labour Court under Section 26(1)
of the Industrial Relations Act 1990. A Labour Court
investigation took place on 16th December, 1993 (the earliest
date suitable to both parties).
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Industrial Relations Officer's proposal was freely
negotiated and recommended for acceptance by both sides. The
overall package of proposals is acceptable to the workers and
should be implemented.
2. Although the Company is not called an hotel, it has many
hotel facilities (details supplied) and is in a prime
location. The Union has been comparing the Company to the
budget hotels and it is clear that the workers' wages must be
addressed. The workers' pay and conditions are below the
norm for the industry.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company was not able to agree to the Industrial
Relations Officer's proposals as they would impact severely
on the Company's financial performance (details supplied).
The Union put forward a very substantial claim which was
outside the financial scope of the Company and which was over
and above the rates for the sector.
2. The Union will not accept rates which are less than
those applying in specified budget hotels (details supplied).
As the examples quoted are hotels, they enjoy considerable
advantages over the Company. To accept the Industrial
Relations Officer's proposals would be irresponsible as it
would lead to closure and the loss of 65 jobs.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court wishes to state that on the basis of the evidence
submitted it is satisfied that this establishment is not an hotel
and accordingly comparison of rates of pay with hotel rates are
not valid.
Having considered the submissions from the parties, and the
additional information supplied the Court recommends:-
(a) The proposals set out in letter dated 7/10/93 items 1-17
inclusive be accepted by the parties as a reasonable way
to resolve the dispute. Taking into account the
Company's trading position, the Court recommends that
the date in item 17 be altered to 1/9/94. Accordingly
items 1-16 will fall to be implemented on 1/9/94 with
the exception of Clause 8 where the operative date will
be 1/10/94.
and
(b) Items 18 to 21 inclusive be subject of further
negotiations when (a) above is implemented.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
24th March, 1994 Evelyn Owens
J.F./M.M. _______________
Deputy Chairman
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should by addressed to
Mr. Jerome Forde, Court Secretary.