FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2001 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : SKYLON HOTEL (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Keogh Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Restructuring of kitchen /restaurant.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company operates a three star hotel on the north side of Dublin. The hotel opened in 1969 as part of the Doyle Group of hotels and now operates as Jurys Skylon Hotel, a part of the combined Jurys and Doyle Hotel Groups. The dispute involves 21 members of the Union.
Owing to a downturn in business during lunch times, a decision was taken to close the restaurant during lunch time and as a consequence, a new rostering agreement was proposed by the hotel management. The options outlined by the Company were rejected by the Union.
As no agreement could be reached locally, the Company referred the matter to the Labour Relations Commission. A conciliation conference was held on the 5th of November, 2002. As no agreement could be reached, the matter was referred to the Labour Court on the 19th of November, 2001, under Section 26(1)(a)(b) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 13th of February, 2002.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. It is generally accepted that we live in a changing environment and that business needs to change to meet customer needs/expectations and service.
2. The service charge contribution to the overall service charge pool has diminished to the point that the restaurant employees draw significantly more service charge from the pool than the restaurant contributes to the pool. Re-structuring would benefit all paid from this pool.
3. The Hotels food operation needs to change radically in order to make it a viable element of the hotel's overall operation.
4. Three options were put to the workers and all were rejected and no alternatives were put forward.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. Head waiters are not agreeable to the Company's proposals of additional duties and responsibilities.
2. Present staff levels do not allow for the proposed changes in the rosters.
3. A number of the workers have worked set rosters for 19 years and changing the rosters would cause considerable difficulties as their domestic arrangements have been built around these rosters.
4. Workers have been flexible in area's that would be outside their normal duties and have increased their workload since last year.
RECOMMENDATION:
It is clear that the Hotel Management have, for business reasons, decided to discontinue the provision of a lunch service in the hotel restaurant. This necessitates changes in the deployment of staff including changes in their present attendance patterns.
In the Court's view, the Union should accept the decision to discontinue the lunch service. The parties should then meet to consider all of the implications arising from that decision. This should involve consideration of the redeployment options available, including the question of compensation for any negative or disruptive affect on staff arising such redeployment.
If the parties fail to reach agreement by the 1st of April, 2002, the matter should be referred back to the Court.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
27th February, 2002______________________
HMCD/CCDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Helena McDermott, Court Secretary.