Labour Court Database
__________________________________________________________________________________
File Number: CD93575
Case Number: LCR14304
Section / Act: S26(1)
Parties: JURY'S LIMITED - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
|
Subject:
Dispute concerning the payment of a 3% increase under the terms of Clause 3 (local bargaining) of the Programme for Economic and Social Progress (PESP).
Recommendation:
Having considered the submissions from the parties, the Court is
not satisfied that genuine negotiations have taken place on the
Union's claim under Clause 3 of the PESP. The Court accordingly
recommends that the parties meet to examine areas where savings
might be achieved or productivity given, in return for the terms
of Clause 3. Should the parties fail to agree they may refer the
dispute back direct to the Court for recommendation.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Brennan Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD93575 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14304
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES:
JURY'S LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS CONFEDERATION)
AND
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning the payment of a 3% increase under the
terms of Clause 3 (local bargaining) of the Programme for Economic
and Social Progress (PESP).
BACKGROUND:
2. 1. The Union represents 103 workers (55 full-time) at the
Hotel. In April 1992, it presented a claim on behalf of the
workers for a 3% increase under Clause 3 (local bargaining)
of the PESP. The Company refused to consider the claim. The
claim was re-entered in January 1993 and it was again
rejected by the Company.
2. The claim was referred to the Labour Relations
Commission and a conciliation conference was held on 6th
June, 1993. There was no common ground between the parties
on the claim and no progress was possible. The claim was
referred to the Labour Court under Section 26(1) of the
Industrial Relations Act, 1990 on 11th October, 1993. A
Labour Court investigation took place in Carlow on 1st
December, 1993 (the earliest date suitable to both parties).
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Company has failed to negotiate on the local
bargaining Clause of the PESP and has made no attempt to put
any proposals to the Union to reconcile this element of the
pay Agreement. It had adequate notice of the implications of
Clause 3 and it should have budgeted accordingly. Payment of
the increase is well within the capacity of this Company
which has been trading well in recent times. It must meet
its obligations particularly to its lower-paid workers.
2. The Company took over the Hotel in 1990 and since then
many improvements have been made to enhance customer service.
The workers have co-operated at all levels with every measure
the Company has requested of them to improve the facilities
and services of the Hotel. As a result it is the first hotel
in Europe to achieve the ISO 9002 quality standard. No extra
concessions have been sought by the workers for their
increased productivity and flexibility. The workers' efforts
should be recognised by the payment of the Clause 3
increase.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company is not in an "exceptional" trading position
and so it cannot enter negotiations under the terms of Clause
3 of the PESP. #1 million has already been invested in the
Hotel and ongoing investment is required if the Hotel is to
be successful. The Company's Hotel has not been making money
and trading in 1992 and 1993 has been less than 1991.
2. To the Company's knowledge no concessions have been made
under the terms of Clause 3 in the Hotels sector. This is
because the sector is experiencing severe difficulties as a
result of recession, increased VAT rates and competition
between Hotels and from guest houses, etc. Further cost
increases would inevitably mean higher prices which could not
be sustained.
RECOMMENDATION:
Having considered the submissions from the parties, the Court is
not satisfied that genuine negotiations have taken place on the
Union's claim under Clause 3 of the PESP. The Court accordingly
recommends that the parties meet to examine areas where savings
might be achieved or productivity given, in return for the terms
of Clause 3. Should the parties fail to agree they may refer the
dispute back direct to the Court for recommendation.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
23rd December, 1993 Evelyn Owens
J.F./M.M. _______________
Deputy Chairman
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should by addressed to
Mr. Jerome Forde, Court Secretary.