FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2001 SECTION 26(1); INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT; 1990 PARTIES : KILLARNEY RYAN HOTEL (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Pierce Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. 10% differential over Joint Labour Committee rate.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Killarney Ryan Hotel is a 3-star hotel which was established in 1968, and forms part of Ryan Hotels plc. The hotel currently employs 120 individuals on a permanent basis. The hotel would typically employ approximately 60 "non-core" staff. The hotel concluded a Company/Union agreement with SIPTU in 1996. This dispute involves approximately 15 members of the Services Industrial Professional and Technical Union.
During March and April, 2000, the Union held discussion with the Company in relation to the application of the 5.5% Phase 1 of the Programme for Prosperity and Fairness. As no agreement could be reached, the matter was referred to the Labour Relations Commission. A conciliation conference was held on the 6th of June, 2001, and agreement was reached in respect of all matters except the Union's claim for a 10% differential to be applied to the Joint Labour Commission rates. As no agreement could be reached, both parties agreed to refer the matter to the to the Labour Court under Section 26(1)(a)(b) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990.
The matter was referred to the Labour Court on the 19th of November, 2001, and a Labour Court hearing took place in Tralee on the 22nd of January, 2002.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. It is well established practice, in unionised hotels, that the wages applied carry a differential of approximately 10% over and above the Joint Labour Committee rates of pay.
2. The wage rate is very poor considering the hours worked by the employees.
3. A two tier system of pay has emerged in the hotel.
3. 1. The Company cannot locate any documentation to show that a 10% differential had been previously applied as alleged by the Union.
2. It is clear that such a claim is cost increasing in nature and is in breach of the Programme for Prosperity and Fairness.
3. The past 12 months have been extremely difficult for the hotel as a result of the various negative shocks which have been presented by its external environment.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court cannot find sufficient evidence to support the Union's claim that a differential had been agreed or applied in the past.
In these circumstances, the Court does not recommend concession of the claim.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
6th February, 2002______________________
HMCD/CCDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Helena McDermott, Court Secretary.