FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : CASTLEROSSE HOTEL, KILLARNEY (REPRESENTED BY THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Flood Employer Member: Mr McHenry Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Pay rates.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Hotel, which is part of the Tower group of hotels, operates on a stand-alone basis with responsibility for its own financial performance. Since its take-over by the Tower group, in 1986, the Hotel has expanded from 47 bedrooms to 110 bedrooms and has added a leisure centre and 27 self-catering apartments. The Hotel shuts down from mid- November to mid-March but, during peak periods, employs up to 100 employees.
In March, 1996, the parties agreed a pay framework (set out in the Hotel's letter dated April 3rd, 1996 to the Union) which provided for a pay increase of 6.5% for existing members of staff. New employees would receive the JLC rate, plus 10%, while 7 workers who were with the Hotel when it was taken over in 1986 would receive an additional £15 per week increase. The 4 receptionists would receive a 10% increase. The agreement was effective from the 1st of May, 1996 to the 30th of April, 1997. In March, 1997, the Hotel indicated that it would apply the terms of Partnership 2000 (P2000), Phase 1 to be applied from the 1st of May, 1997. The Union is seeking pay increases above the terms of P2000 and claims that the Hotel had given a commitment to this effect. The Hotel rejected the Union's claim and the dispute was the subject of a conciliation conference under the auspices of the Labour Relations Commission, at which agreement was not reached. The dispute was referred to the Labour Court, on the 3rd of July, 1997, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. The Court carried out its investigation, in Tralee, on the 18th of December, 1997.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The increases brought into effect from May, 1996 were agreed by the workers only as an interim measure. In the Company's letter to the Union, dated 3rd April, 1996, the Hotel undertook to meet with the Union in the first week of March, 1997, for discussions relating to the following season. The Union expected the Hotel to honour that commitment, which did not happen.
2. By any standards, the Hotel pays very low wages. While the staff is perceived to work a 39-hour week, the reality is that they work considerably longer hours. They are a dedicated workforce with the Hotel's interests at heart and deserve a substantial increase in pay, back-dated for the season of 1997.
HOTEL'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. Whilst the Hotel had previously acknowledged the existence of some anomalies with regard to rates of pay, these anomalies were adequately addressed during the 1996 discussions.
When the Hotel met with the Union on two separate occasions during March 1996, the Union suggested that the Hotel should consider entering into a three-year agreement with the Union on the matter of pay. This suggestion was, at all times, rejected by the Hotel as entirely inappropriate given the uncertainty which existed at that time as to the possibility of a new National Wage Agreement being achieved. However, the Hotel did agree to meet with the Union in the first week of March, 1997 for discussions on the forthcoming season. Accordingly, a meeting took place on the 7th March, 1997, at which time the Hotel confirmed its commitment to P2000 and in particular the provisions outlined under Clause 2 of that Agreement. The 2.5% increase under Phase 1 of the Agreement was implemented at the Hotel with effect from 1st May, 1997.
2. The Hotel has traditionally adhered to the various national wage agreements which have been in existence since the Hotel was taken over in 1986. The current rates of pay at the Hotel are well in excess of JLC rates.
3. The substantial increases in pay which were awarded to all employees in 1996 have resulted in a significant rise in operating costs for the Hotel, which is trading in a highly competitive business environment. Due to the competitive nature of the business, the Hotel does not have the capacity to absorb any further increases in labour costs.
4. Since the Hotel concluded its discussions with the Union, in March, 1996, have signed up to the P2000 agreement. Clause 6 of that agreement specifically precludes cost-increasing claims for improvements in pay or conditions of employment, other than those which are provided for in the Agreement.
RECOMMENDATION:
While there is obviously disagreement between the parties in relation to their understanding of the letter of 3rd of April, 1996, the Court, having considered all the information before it, finds that this claim is in breach of Partnership 2000 and, therefore, cannot be considered.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Finbarr Flood
12th of January, 1998______________________
M.K./S.G.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Michael Keegan, Court Secretary.