FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2001 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : GRESHAM HOTEL GROUP PLC (REPRESENTED BY MASON HAYES & CURRAN) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Grier Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Loyalty bonus.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Gresham Hotel Group plc. (the Group) operates a chain of hotels in Ireland. It was formally known as Ryan Hotels plc. In June, 2003, the group entered into a contract for the sale of three Ryan Hotels - in Galway, Limerick and Killarney. The three Hotels will be managed in the future by Choice Hotels Ireland.
The Union's claim is that a loyalty bonus be paid to approximately 330 full time and part time staff working in the three Hotels. It cited as an example that the Group had given payment of €5,000 to each member of staff in the Royal Marine Hotel when it was sold by the Group. The claim has been rejected by the Group but it stated at the hearing that it would be willing to make some financial gesture to the workers.
The dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commission and a conciliation conference took place. As the parties did not reach agreement, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 7th of July, 2003, in accordance with section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 18th of July, 2003.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The workers concerned have given long years of loyal service to the Group as employees of the three Hotels.
2. They have contributed considerably to the long term viability and success of their respective Hotels and they should be financially rewarded accordingly.
3. The Group gave recognition in similar circumstances to workers in the Royal Marine Hotel when it was sold and leased back recently.
GROUP'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1.The three Hotels were loss making as part of the Group but it is likely that they will prosper under new owners.
2. The example of the Royal Marine Hotel was entirely different when the Group sold it and leased it back until October, 2004. The loyalty payment was made in the context of employees facing an uncertain future at the Hotel.
3.The terms and conditions of employment for the workers will not change as a result of the sale of the Hotels. There are no special circumstances which would warrant a loyalty bonus.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court is satisfied that there are substantial differences in the circumstances surrounding the agreement to pay a loyalty bonus in another location - on which this claim is based - and the circumstances in the present case. Whilst a substantial volume of additional information was provided concerning the payment of similar payments elsewhere, this does not indicate that it is the normal or accepted practice to make such payments in the Hotels' industry. In consequence, the Court does not recommend the payment of a loyalty bonus in this case.
The Court notes that the Company is agreeable to make what it terms a gesture of good will in response to the Union's claim. No offer was made at either direct negotiations or in conciliation. In these circumstances, the Court is of the view that the parties should resume negotiations for the purpose of quantifying the extent to which the claim can be addressed.
The Court recommends that these negotiations should resume immediately and conclude within one month.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
22nd September, 2003______________________
CON/BBDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Ciaran O'Neill, Court Secretary.