FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : JURY'S HOTEL (REPRESENTED BY THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr McHenry Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Hearing arising from Labour Court Recommendation LCR14304 concerning a claim for a 3% increase under Clause 3 of the Programme for Economic and Social Progress (PESP).
BACKGROUND:
2. The dispute concerns a claim, lodged in April, 1992 on behalf of approximately 80 workers, for a 3% pay increase under the local bargaining clause of the PESP. The claim was rejected by the Company and the matter was the subject of a Labour Court investigation, in December, 1993, following which LCR14304 issued. The Court found that genuine negotiations had not taken place concerning the Union's claim and recommended that the parties meet to examine areas where savings might be achieved or productivity given in return for the 3% pay increase. The parties failed to reach agreement and the matter was referred back to the Court. A second Court hearing took place on the 12th of February, 1998, which was adjourned to allow the parties to attempt, again, to reach a negotiated settlement. By letter dated the 4th of March, 1998, the Company proposed a number of measures, as follows:-
(1) That house assistants would service 14 rooms per day instead of the 12 rooms per day at present, and that a person would be delegated to carry out room service;
(2) That the hours in the "Still Room" would change for the months of November, December, January and February to 11-7 and 3 - 11 : work required in the Still Room would be carried out by restaurant staff;
As an additional 'bonus' to the members, the Company would introduce the Jury's Group pension scheme.
In return for implementation of the above, the Company would pay an increase of 2%. The Company's offer was made as an all-inclusive package in full and final settlement of any claim under Clause 3 of the PESP.
A counter-proposal by the Union followed which included, inter alia, the payment of a 3% increase, part retrospective to April, 1992, for acceptance of the two Company proposals. The Union would also recommend the introduction of the pension scheme to its members if it did not replace their claim under Clause 3 of the PESP and if those not eligible to join, by way of age, would, "in some way", be accommodated. Clarification was sought from the Company on the matters of the pension, and the implementation of the proposed changes. The Company reiterated its position that its offer was an all-inclusive package in full and final settlement of any claims under Clause 3. The Company stated, further, that any payment would not be retrospective. The Company's proposals were, subsequently, rejected by the Union and, accordingly, the Court was requested by both parties to issue a recommendation.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court recommends that the Company's final offer be modified to provide for an increase of 3% with effect from the date of acceptance of this Recommendation.
The other elements of the offer, as set out in the Company's letter to the Union of 4th of March, 1998 should be accepted and implemented.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
30th of March, 1998______________________
M.K./S.G.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Michael Keegan, Court Secretary.