FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 20(2), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : GLENEAGLE HOTEL (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr McGee Employer Member: Mr Doherty Worker Member: Mr Nash |
1. Sustaining Progress.
BACKGROUND:
2. This dispute concerns a claim by the Company that it is unable to pay the terms of Phases 2 and 3 of Sustaining Progress.
The dispute could not be resolved at local level or at a conciliation conference held on 27th September 2006, under the auspices of the Labour Relations Commission. On 2nd November 2006, in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 1.10 (ii) of Sustaining Progress, the Labour Relations Commission appointed an assessor to examine the economic, commercial and employment circumstances of the Company.
The Assessor's Report of 21st February 2007 found in favour of the Company's claim of inability to pay. At a resumed conciliation conference in July 2007, the Union requested that the dispute be referred the Labour Court for a full hearing. The Company agreed to this and, in accordance with Section 20(2) of the Industrial Relations Act,1969, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 30th August 2007. Both parties agreed to be bound by the Court's recommendation. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 24th January, 2008.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
2. 1.The Company is able to pay the Sustaining Progress increases because it has a higher occupancy rate than its local or national competitors, and can find the money to invest €500,000 in the upgrading of bedrooms and to pay increases in legally-binding Joint Labour Committee rates.
2.The amount and origin of the Company's debts are not clear. The owners of the Gleneagle Hotel have an interest or management role in a number of hotels and the claimed losses are the result of cross funding between a number of the owners' interests.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1.Competition, locally and nationally, is creating difficult trading conditions for the Company; newer local hotels, in particular, are offering a better product, which the Company cannot compete with.
2.Fixed and variable costs continue to increase at a rate well above inflation.
3.The Company owes €26 million but is not able to repay fully the interest owed due to the difficult trading position.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court does not find itself in a position to make a definitive recommendation on this case pursuant on the Assessor's report and the submissions of the parties. The Court also considers that, at this remove, the Assessor's report and the data on which it is based are not sufficiently contemporaneous to assist the Court.
The Court recommends that a further Assessor's investigation should take place, on the same basis as previously but reflecting the current financial position. This report should indicate precisely whether the Employer is in a position to pay the disputed increases and should be undertaken and completed on an urgent basis with the co-operation of the Labour Relations Commission. On receipt of this report, if no agreement can be arrived at between the parties, the Court will issue a definitive recommendation, again under Section 20(2) of the Act.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Raymond McGee
7th February, 2008.______________________
AH.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Andrew Heavey, Court Secretary.