FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 2(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS (AMENDMENT) ACT, 2001 PARTIES : ASHFORD CASTLE LIMITED - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Doherty Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Hearing arising from DECP 032.
BACKGROUND:
2. In October, 2003 the Union's application on behalf of its members in respect of pay and other conditions of employment, under the Industrial Relations Amendment Act, 2001, was the subject of a preliminary Labour Court hearing. In DECP 032 which was issued on the 19th November, 2003 the Court decided as follows:
" ...............the Court is satisfied that each of the requirements specified at Section 2(1) of the Act have been met and that it is entitled to investigate the dispute referred by SIPTU accordingly."
The Court investigated the dispute at a hearing which was held on the18th February, 2004. The hearing was adjourned in order that the parties could provide additional information to the Court. In the meantime Court issued an interim recommendation in relation to the Disciplinary and Grievance procedures (LCR 17760 refers). Upon receipt of the information requested, a final hearing was held in Galway on the 7th July, 2004.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1.Pay.While the Company has applied the terms of the Programme for Prosperity and Fairness and Sustaining Progress Agreements the claimants do not benefit from previous National Wage Agreements. No formal system existed, pay increases were not applied across the board to all employees (except management) during this period. This resulted in lost ground in pay between comparative grades across the hospitality and hotel industry.
2.Sick Pay Scheme. The Company operates a discretionary sick pay scheme which is out of line with appropriate standards in comparable employments. The Union proposes that the scheme which exists in the Great Southern Group be introduced in Ashford Castle.
3.Pension Scheme.The current scheme is substantially out of line with appropriate standards in comparable employments. It should be reviewed positively as a matter of urgency.
4.Service Charge/Tipping Policy.The Union accepts that the hotel is a non-service charge one and that a small number of employees benefit from a service charge payment. This payment should be safeguarded and red circled. The Union accepts that the Court may not be at liberty to make significant pay proposals for workers currently benefiting from a service charge. The Union would like to engage with Management on the implementation of "Tipping Policy". Workers have incurred a significant loss of earnings compared to other non-service charge hotels where a coherent tipping policy is in place. Workers who do not benefit from service charge should have their basic rates of pay positively reviewed.
5.Commission- Boutique.There are currently three employees working in the boutique. However, only one( the manager) receives commission. There should be an equitable distribution of commission among all workers assigned to the boutique.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1.Pay.The comparison exercise conducted by Management compared rates of pay in Ashford Castle to surveys from IBEC, Irish Hotels Federation, JLC Rates and other 5 Star Hotels within Ireland. The rates of pay obtaining in Ashford Castle compare very favourably within those surveyed.
2.Sick Pay Scheme.In 2002 it was the intention of the Irish Hotels Federation to introduce a sickness policy for its members, however, it opted not to do so. Ashford Castle developed its own scheme (details supplied to the Court). The Company's policy is eligible for all employees who have completed their probationary period. The Company has carried out a comprehensive survey in the sector. Management considers that its policy is in line with schemes in comparable employments.
3.Pension Scheme.The Company operates a defined contribution scheme funded by contributions from employer and employee. The scheme is open to voluntary participation.The Company has carried out a comprehensive survey and the terms of its scheme are substantially in line with the schemes operating in competitor employments.
4.Service Charge/Tipping Policy.The current service charge arrangements apply to workers directly involved in providing Food and Beverage Service, e.g. Kitchen, Restaurant, Bar, Night Porters, Thatch Cottage Departments. It does not apply to Reception, Accommodation, Day Porters, Administration, Boutique, Maintenance and Grounds Departments. No service charge is included in or deducted from room rates.
5.Commission-Boutique.The Boutique is currently staffed by the manager, a regular part-time employee and a part-time employee. The boutique environment does not have a transient trade -the number of guests in the hotel dictates their business levels. As part of the duties of a barperson is to sell beverages, a receptionist to sell rooms, the duties of the boutique staff are to sell boutique products. Commission is not applicable to operational staff in any department in the hotel. The scheme of remuneration for the Boutique Manager relates exclusively to the sales performed arrangement against the sales budget. The responsibility for sales by the Boutique Manager is similar to the responsibility that applies to other Department Managers within the Company in delivering against the budget agreed.
RECOMMENDATION:
This dispute came before the Court pursuant to Section 2 (1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 2001. The Court has already issued a determination that the conditions specified by that section were fulfilled and that the Court has jurisdiction to investigate the dispute. The Court has also issued an interim Recommendation, LCR 17760, dealing with disciplinary and grievance procedures.
In support of its claims the Union submitted information on rates of pay and conditions of employment in a number of hotels, which were fixed by collective bargaining. The Employer supplied information obtained from a comprehensive survey of pay and conditions of employment in comparable five star hotels. This information was provided to the Court and to the other party to the dispute on a confidential basis and the Court requested that it be used only for the purposes of this investigation.
The Court cannot and does not recommend that the parties engage in collective bargaining in relation to terms and conditions of employment and nothing contained in this recommendation should be construed as providing for collective bargaining.
Having considered all the information with which it was provided the Court recommends as follows:
Rates of Pay.
The rates of pay set out in the schedule to this recommendation should apply to the categories covered by the Union's claim and detailed in its submission of 18th February, 2004.
All rates are expressed in Euros per 39 hour week and are inclusive of live in /live out allowances as stipulated by the Minimum Wage Act, 2000. They are also inclusive of the payment derived from one point of the service charge in the case of those categories to which service charge is applicable. The rates are in respect of the basic grades in question and apply to staff who are trained and qualified in the duties of the grade. They are not applicable to trainees or those having extra responsibilities. Where individuals have rates higher than those recommended, the difference should be retained on a personal to holder basis.
Sick Pay.
A sick pay scheme should be put in place which provides for 13 weeks sick leave on full pay in any year, less social welfare. All leave should be covered by medical certification and no payment should be due for the first three days of any illness. The scheme should be available to all employees who have completed their probation period.
Pension Scheme.
The contribution to the pension scheme should be 5 % from the employer and 5% from employees. The Company should also take steps to have a worker trustee appointed to the scheme.
Tipping Policy.
The Court accepts the Union's contention that the manner in which accommodation was marketed by the Company could give the erroneous impression that a service charge is included. This in turn may have resulted in staff receiving fewer gratuities than might otherwise have been the case . Given that tipping can be a significant source of income, the Court recommends that the Company clarify to its customers the current arrangements on service charge.
Boutique.
The Court believes that all staff who work in the Boutique should receive some share of the commission on sales. The division of the commission should be agreed between the staff concerned and if agreement is not reached the matter should be processed through the grievance procedure recommended by the Court in Recommendation No. LCR 17760.
Implementation.
This recommendation should be implemented within one month from the date on which it is issued.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
22nd July, 2004______________________
TOD/BRChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Tom O'Dea, Court Secretary.
Schedule
Recommended Rates
Receptionist: €350 p.w.
Day Porter: €372 p.w.
Night Porter: €411 p.w.
Housekeeping Assistant: €372 p.w.
Linen Porter: €372 p.w.
Bartender: € 450 p.w.
Still Room Assistant: €337 p.w.
Wash Up Assistant: €337 p.w.
Waiter/Waitress: €450 p.w.
Chef: €450 p.w.