Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD9675 Case Number: LCR15140 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: BEWLEY'S ORIENTAL CAFE LIMITED (Represented by MANAGEMENT SUPPORT SERVICES) - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Claim by the Union on behalf of 120 workers for payment of the 3% increase under Clause 3 of the Programme for Economic and Social Progress.
Recommendation:
The Court is conscious that the parties have tried to find a basis
for payment of Clause 3 P.E.S.P. but have failed to reach
agreement.
The Court is of the view that a basis for agreement should be
found around the two proposals from the Company in relation to
meals and cleaning.
The Court, therefore, recommends that the parties meet to
negotiate an agreement to subvent the payment by agreeing new meal
arrangements and/or cleaning arrangements. To this end the Court
would recommend that the Company proposals be modified in order to
facilitate the process.
Division: Mr Flood Mr McHenry Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD9675 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR15140
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES:
BEWLEY'S ORIENTAL CAFE LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY MANAGEMENT SUPPORT SERVICES)
AND
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim by the Union on behalf of 120 workers for payment of
the 3% increase under Clause 3 of the Programme for Economic
and Social Progress.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company operates four cafes and six shops in the Dublin
area and employs approximately 400 workers. The Union's
claim was submitted in 1993. It sought payment of the
increase from 1st December 1992. The Company rejected the
claim. The dispute was referred to the Labour Relations
Commission and four conciliation conferences were held
between August 1994 and November 1995. At conciliation the
parties considered proposals by the Company whereby the cost
of paying the 3% might be off set e.g. workers would
undertake extra cleaning duties or the issuing of staff meals
would be ended with the introduction of a staff menu of £1
per day. However agreement was not reached and the dispute
was referred to the Labour Court by the Labour Relations
Commission on the 16th February, 1996. A Court hearing was
held on the 3rd April, 1996.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The workers concerned are in receipt of low rates of
pay. The PESP was primarily aimed at providing
increases for such workers. The increase claimed is a
modest one, to a worker at the top point of the scale it
would mean an increase of £4.29 per week.
2. Workers have given significant co-operation to the
Company by way of flexibility including working
weekends/evenings for basic rates.
3. The Company is profitable and can afford to pay the
small increase claimed. It will not impact
significantly on the Company's financial situation.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company faces severe competition from other catering
companies with low overhead costs, and it is essential
to control labour costs in order to retain market share.
2. The Company acknowledges the contribution made by staff
and in discussions at conciliation tried to introduce
schemes by which the 3% could be paid in return for cost
saving measures.
3. The 3% increase cannot be paid unless a quid pro quo is
given by the workers. The costs involved would not be
sustainable.
4. The Company's profits in recent years are minimal and
potential growth from the domestic market is limited.
It pays reasonable wage rates, in excess of many
competitors. Management wishes to improve the
conditions of the workers. However the Company cannot
pay the 3% increase if it results in increased costs.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court is conscious that the parties have tried to find a basis
for payment of Clause 3 P.E.S.P. but have failed to reach
agreement.
The Court is of the view that a basis for agreement should be
found around the two proposals from the Company in relation to
meals and cleaning.
The Court, therefore, recommends that the parties meet to
negotiate an agreement to subvent the payment by agreeing new meal
arrangements and/or cleaning arrangements. To this end the Court
would recommend that the Company proposals be modified in order to
facilitate the process.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
17th April, 1996 Finbarr Flood
T.O'D./S.G. _______________
Deputy Chairman
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Tom O'Dea, Court Secretary.