INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
THE BERKELEY COURT HOTEL
(REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION)
- AND -
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
Chairman: Mr McGee
Employer Member: Mr Doherty
Worker Member: Mr Nash
1. Claim by the Union for a 9% increase in pay and retrospection.
2. The Berkeley Court Hotel is part of the Jurys Doyle Hotel Group. Arising from the introduction of the Intoxicating Liquor Act 2000 the Union served a claim on behalf of bar staff for an increase in pay. Following discussions at local level an agreement was reached in the eight hotels in the Group. It provided for a 9% increase in basic pay in return for productivity measures and flexibility required in each individual hotel, as contained in the Intoxicating Liquor Act, 2000 and included the later opening of public bars on Thursday and Friday nights. Each of the hotels was unique in how their bars operated and, therefore, the productivity measures needed to pay the 9% varied. In relation to the Berkeley Court Hotel a set of proposals put forward by Management covering rosters, overtime, area of coverage and staff levels was rejected following a ballot of workers. The Union then claimed payment of the 9% in respect of the banqueting area bar staff. Management rejected the claim. The dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commission. A conciliation conference was held but agreement was not reached. The dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 4th November, 2004 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Court hearing was held on the 28th January, 2005.
3. 1. While ideally it would have been better to resolve the issue on an overall basis covering staff in the bar and banqueting areas there was nothing to preclude an agreement covering banqueting staff only.
2. Banqueting staff have given the required flexibility/cooperation since the introduction of the Intoxicating Liquor Act, 2000. This has mainly arisen through the late opening of the banqueting bar beyond 12 p.m. on Saturday nights, but has also included any other of the productivity measures in the draft agreement. Concession of the increase would only affect one full-time bar person in the banqueting area.
4. 1. A consistent productivity requirement across all the hotels was the area of rostering. Agreement has not been reached on this issue. The bar staff chose not to provide the productivity measures sought. Management is not prepared to break down the agreement to include just one element of the bars within the Hotel.
2. The Hotel accepted the majority decision in a ballot of the proposals. It wishes to conclude an agreement with the bar function overall and not with an individual unit.
The Court, having taken account of the submissions made by both parties and the flexibility and cooperation already given by the claimant recommends that he be awarded an increase of 2% to take effect from the time when he began to give the increased flexibility/cooperation, and to be offset against any final settlement reached with bar staff in the Hotel in regard to productivity. This recommendation is unique to the circumstances of the worker's individual case and should not be seen as a precedent in any other or future similar case.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
10th February, 2005______________________
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Tom O'Dea, Court Secretary.