FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : ROYAL DUBLIN HOTEL (REPRESENTED BY THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Employer Member: Worker Member: |
1. Pay and dismissals.
BACKGROUND:
2. 1. Pay Increase:
The Union submitted a claim for a pay increase on behalf of its members employed by the Hotel. It argues that the rates of pay being paid are below the norm for the hotel industry. The Union is seeking a basic rate of £5.50 per hour and that Chefs, Supervisors, Reception and Administrative staff be paid a rate of £6.50 per hour. Furthermore, it wanted the reinstatement of employees dismissed before and subsequent to strike action taking place.
2. The Hotel rejected the Union's claim and stated that its rates of pay are in line with competitor hotels of similar size. The Hotel stated that it is party to the provisions of the Programme for Competitiveness and Work (PCW) and considers payments outside the terms of the PCW as inappropriate. It also rejected the Union's claim for reinstatement of the dismissed employees.
3. As no agreement was possible between the parties the Union issued strike notice to take effect from the 22nd June, 1996. Strike notice remained in place while the dispute was referred to the Conciliation Service of the Labour Relations Commission. A conciliation conference on the 26th June, 1996 failed to resolve the dispute. However, following the conciliation conference, and before strike notice took effect, agreement was reached between the parties which involved a proposal to pay 3% under Clause 3 of the Programme for Economic and Social Progress (PESP). The agreement was concluded in the absence of IBEC and the Labour Relations Commission.
4. A further dispute arose in July, 1996 between the parties as to what was "agreed" to in June, 1996, at conciliation. The Union claims that it called off the strike on the basis of an immediate payment of 3%. The Hotel claims that it only agreed to pay the 3% following the exhaustion of procedures and the conclusion of an agreement.
5. Another conciliation conference was held on the 26th July, 1996 to process the overall pay dispute. No agreement was possible between the parties. Strike action commenced on the 31st August, 1996. The Union would not agree to a referral of the dispute to the Labour Court.
Dismissals:
6. The Labour Relations Commission invited the parties to a further conciliation conference on the 14th October, 1996 to try and resolve the dispute. The Union insisted that the strike would continue unless those employees dismissed prior to and subsequent to the strike were reinstated. The employer was not amenable to this proposal.
7. As no agreement was possible between the parties the dispute was referred to the Labour Court under Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. The Court investigated the dispute on the 21st October, 1996.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Union is seeking rates of pay and conditions of employment similar to those applying to a majority of hotel workers in Dublin, who are governed by the Dublin Hotels Industry Agreement.
2. The Union also wants the 3% increase for its members which the Company paid to non-strikers effective from 29th June, 1996.
3. Management can afford to concede this claim on the basis of substantial growth in the tourism industry.
4. The Union wants the reinstatement of the two workers who were dismissed.
HOTEL'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. An agreement with the ATGWU in 1978 established agreed rates of pay at the Hotel. Labour Court Recommendation No. LCR10861 refers.
2. The wage structure in the Hotel is continuously reviewed and updated. It is the basis on which employees take up employment with the Hotel.
3. The rates of pay in the Hotel are in line with those of other three star hotels for that category of the industry.
4. The salary increases sought by the Union are in breach of the Programme for Competitiveness and Work (PCW).
5. Management is not prepared to reinstate those workers dismissed as a result of the dispute.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has fully considered all of the views of the parties as expressed in their oral and written submissions together with the documentary information supplied.
There were two issues that required to be addressed, pay and a basis for a resumption of normal working.
In respect of the issue of pay the Court finds that if a fair and reasonable Recommendation is to be made there needs to be sufficient grounds shown to enable a decision to be made as to which hotels are appropriate for pay comparison purposes.
The Court finds that there is insufficient information available to it on which it can make such a decision. Accordingly, the Court intends to carry out an informal inspection of hotels referred to by both parties with a view to deciding on the appropriate comparators.
This exercise must be carried out in a climate of industrial peace and with this end in view the Court makes the following Recommendations:
(1) That normal working be resumed on acceptance of this Recommendation;
(2) That any issue regarding workers dismissed by the Company be referred to a Rights Commissioner in accordance with the Provisions of the Unfair Dismissals Acts;
(3) That the rates of pay as applicable on the date of commencement of industrial action be increased by 3% with effect from 1st July, 1996 and 1% with effect from 1st October, 1996 (i.e. rates of pay to apply to be in accordance with those in Appendix 1 of this Recommendation);
(4) That, on a resumption of normal working, the Court will arrange to carry out an informal inspection of the hotels referred to by the parties with a view to deciding on the appropriate hotels to be considered for pay comparison purposes;
Following the inspection the Court will issue a Recommendation on the issue of pay;
(5) The Court recommends that a sum of £200 be paid to every employee arising from the difficulties inherent in this dispute.
The above Recommendations are put forward as a basis for a resumption of normal working and to enable the Court secure such information as is considered necessary to make a fair and reasonable Recommendation on the issue of pay.
The Court would request the parties to consider the Recommendations and recommend them to their constituents for acceptance.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Tom McGrath
4th November, 1996______________________
L.W./S.G.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Larry Wisely, Court Secretary.