FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2001 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : CAMDEN COURT HOTEL (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Flood Employer Member: Mr Carberry Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Introduction of Sick Pay Scheme and Pension Scheme.
BACKGROUND:
2. The dispute concerns the Union's claim, on behalf of 10 porters, for the introduction of a sick pay and pension scheme. The Company rejected the claim on the basis of the cost involved. The dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commission. A conciliation conference was held in July, 2002. Agreement was not reached. The dispute was referred to the Labour Court by the Labour Relations Commission on the 9th September, 2002. A Court hearing was held on the 29th November, 2002.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3.Sick Pay:
1. The Company's proposal for a sick pay scheme in 1999 indicated its acceptance of the need for a scheme. The proposed sick pay scheme was rejected for a number of reasons, including the level of benefit provided and the numbers of contributors.
2. The Company has now altered its position and is not prepared to address the issue at all.
Pension Scheme:
1. Initially the Company indicated its willingness to consider the introduction of a pension scheme, but now is not prepared to give it consideration.
2. The Union does not accept that the business climate has deteriorated and the hotel is performing reasonably well even in the off peak season.
3. It is unacceptable that Management has refused to enter negotiations on these two basic issues.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4Sick Pay:
1. The Company did not have an objection in principle to the introduction of a sick pay scheme and, in 1999, put a proposed scheme to the Union which was ultimately rejected. The Company proposal is now not tenable due to cost factors and the present economic climate.
Pension Scheme:
1.The Company did not make a proposal in respect of a pension scheme because of the cost involved. The Company contends that Pay Related Savings Accounts (PRSA's) are a more realistic alternative.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court accepts that it is not possible to consider this claim as presented at this time.
However, the Court recommends that the parties enter into discussion on possible Sick Pay and Pension Schemes that might be appropriate if the trading position of the hotel was to improve sufficiently to allow their introduction.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Finbarr Flood
5th December, 2002.______________________
TODDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Tom O'Dea, Court Secretary.