FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : JURY'S HOTEL AND TOWERS (REPRESENTED BY THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Pierce Worker Member: Mr Rorke |
1. Staffing levels.
BACKGROUND:
2. In 1988 the parties negotiated an agreement which provided that the staffing level for the bar in Jury's Hotel and Towers would be 18 qualified and 14 commis or trainee staff. Currently the level is 14 qualified and the number of commis staff has fallen by 3.
The Union claims that the levels should be increased to the 1988 agreement level or alternatively that the Company should pay the workers a commission payment of 1% per year rising to 10% commission over a ten year period. The Union also seeks improved basic pay rates for commis staff. Management rejected the claim on the grounds that staffing levels were adequate for the level of business currently being generated and that appropriate increases had already been paid. The dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commission and conciliation conferences were held in March and July, 1997. Agreement was not possible and the dispute was referred to the Labour Court by the Labour Relations Commission on the 7th of October, 1997. A Court hearing was held on the 2nd of December, 1997.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Company's proposal relating to manning level reductions and greater flexibility within the bars introduced in its "Project Future Strategy" document of 1994, have not been agreed with the Union.
2. The Company rejected proposals from the bartenders for the introduction of a commission payment system in return for accepting new staffing levels and greater flexibility.
3. Many of the provisions of the "Project Future Strategy" document have already been implemented by the workers concerned (details supplied to the Court). Many of the workers' demands such as the introduction of commission payments and increases for commis staff, education for bar staff and commis, and compensation for loss of gratuities arising from the introduction of lounge/floor staff, have not been conceded by Management.
4. As the Company has rejected all of the workers' proposals and has not put forward alternative proposals or reached agreement with the bartenders these workers are entitled to expect full compliance with the terms of the 1988 agreement.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. There is a requirement for 14 qualified and 16 commis staff. The total staff complement in the bars at present is 14 qualified and a combination of 21 trainee/non-qualified staff. Management has consistently stated that, in the event of an increase in business in the bars, the issue of the requirement for qualified staff would be addressed. It is extremely difficult at present to recruit qualified staff while less trainees are coming into the business.
2. At year ending April, 1988 beverage sales amounted to £1.364 million. At year ending April, 1997 beverage sales amounted to £1.54 million in 1988 terms, an increase of 13% after nine years. Following the payment of the final phase of the Programme for Competitiveness and Work (PCW) in March, 1997 a qualified bar person has a weekly wage of £244.35 + £24.44 Sunday equivalent, an increase of 34% in wages over nine years. This compares to an increase in sales of 13%.
3. The wage rates of the workers concerned compare very favourably with those of other hotels in the city and a comparator hotel actually pays 12% less in wages to bar staff.
4. Since the introduction of service charge, bar staff receive a commission of 2.5% of service charge revenue. If staff levels were to be increased by four qualified staff (as per Union claim) the commission would be divided among a greater pool.
5. Of the total compliment of 30 qualified staff for the bars only four were party to the 1988 agreement.
6. At present the manner in which the quota of full time staff is complemented by casuals gives Management the capacity to determine staff levels relative to the business demand. No cost savings have been achieved. Where the Company deems that the business requires the recruitment of additional staff, the pool of qualified bar persons could be increased.
RECOMMENDATION:
Having considered the submissions made to it, the Court recommends that the parties seek to resolve the issue now in dispute, by recommencing negotiations on outstanding matters tabled by the Company in its Project Future proposal. They should take account of extra savings which may be realised by the Company from such of these measures as may be agreed.
These negotiations should also address the current staffing requirements for bar staff having regard to the requirements of the business and the work load of existing staff.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
8th January, 1998______________________
T.O'D./D.T.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Tom O'Dea, Court Secretary.