FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2001 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: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Keogh Worker Member: Mr. Somers |
1. 1. Parity of basic pay with Craftsmen in Doyle Construction Limited. 2. Reinstate members' craft titles. 3. Additional holiday leave. 4. Tool and travel allowance.
BACKGROUND:
2. The dispute before the Court concerns a claim by the Union on behalf of its members employed by the Hotel as maintenance staff. The Union's claim is as follows:-
(1) Parity of basic pay with Craftsmen in Doyle Construction Ltd.
(2) The restoration of craft titles.
(3) An increase in annual leave.
(4) Tool and travelling allowances.
The Company states that the claim for parity of basic pay with Craftsmen in Doyle Construction Ltd. is cost increasing and in breach of the PPF. The claim for an extra day's annual leave cannot be conceded as it would have knock on effects within the hotel. The Company does not wish to re-introduce craft titles as it moved away from this towards a multi-skilled maintenance worker. Tools are supplied by the hotel, therefore, a tool allowance does not apply. Travel allowance does not apply either.
The issues could not be resolved at local level. The dispute was the subject of a conciliation conference under the auspices of the Labour Relations Commission held on the 11th of April, 2001. As agreement was not reached, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 25th of April, 2001 under Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 14th of June, 2001.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The workers concerned should receive the same rate of pay and an extra day's annual leave as that paid to the Craftsmen in Doyle Construction Ltd. They should also receive tool and travel allowances.
2. At one time maintenance staff were employed by the Hotel with their craft titles, they are now employed as General Operatives with skills. The workers concerned have experienced difficulties when taking up new posts, with their new employers and relevant craft unions. Craft titles should be re-introduced.
3. The workers concerned are totally flexible. Their claim is reasonable and should be conceded.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The claim for parity of basic pay with Craftsmen in Doyle Construction Ltd is cost increasing and in breach of the PPF. The claim for an extra day's annual leave if conceded would result in claims by other staff groups within the hotel. Tools are supplied by the hotel, therefore, a tool allowance does not apply. Travel allowance does not apply either.
2. The Company is not willing to restore craft titles as it moved away from this to a multi-skilled maintenance worker.
3. The claim only became an issue since the companies merged in 1999.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has given consideration to all aspects of these claims. The Union has put forward a claim for parity of pay and conditions between craftsmen and general operatives employed by the Hotel and construction workers as apply in the construction industry.
The Court considers that the pay structure applicable in the Hotel, which includes a service charge, makes it very distinctive, as it allows for the enhancement of earnings depending on the level of business. Therefore, the Court does not support the argument that their rates should be aligned with the basic pay of construction workers.
The Court recommends that the claim for an increase in annual leave entitlement should await the outcome of the general claim which is being processed at the moment.
The Court notes that the provision of tool allowances is no longer a feature of the construction industry and also notes that the Hotel supplies tools.
In relation to the claim for the travelling allowances, the Court sees no basis for introducing such allowances to these workers.
The issue of titles given to the job has been raised by the Union as the term "Maintenance Operative" has given rise to some difficulties for the workers concerned. The Court recommends that the parties should endeavour to find a resolution to this difficulty by agreeing on an identity for these workers.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
2nd July, 2001______________________
GB/CCDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Gerardine Buckley, Court Secretary.