The High Court has rejected an appeal by Ashford Castle against minimum pay rates set by the Labour Court for categories of employees at the five-star hotel in Cong, Co Mayo.
SIPTU represented a significant number of staff at the hotel. Ashford Castle did not engage in collective bargaining, instead agreeing pay individually with employees. A wider dispute over terms and conditions was referred to the Labour Court under industrial relations legislation designed for workplaces without collective bargaining.
The Labour Court issued a non-binding recommendation in July 2004 and a binding determination in January 2005. By the time the case reached the High Court, the only remaining issue was pay.
The determination set weekly minimum rates ranging from €337 for still-room and wash-up assistants to €450 for bartenders, waiting staff and chefs. Where applicable, one point of the hotel’s guaranteed service-charge payment was included in the basic rate. Existing employees already earning more were to retain their higher rate.
Ashford Castle argued that the Labour Court had used overly broad staff categories, failed properly to account for service-charge income, set excessive rates and insufficiently considered hotel-industry surveys. It also said implementation would add about €300,000 annually to labour costs and threaten profitability.
Mr Justice Clarke rejected those arguments. He held that the Labour Court, as an expert statutory body, was entitled to give particular weight to pay rates negotiated through collective bargaining at comparable hotels such as the Herbert Park and Conrad in Dublin.
The judge also found that the Labour Court had expressly considered service-charge arrangements and Ashford Castle’s financial position. He said the court could reasonably balance the employer’s financial concerns against employees’ entitlement to fair and reasonable pay comparable with similar businesses.
The High Court stressed that an appeal on a point of law does not allow it to substitute its own view for the Labour Court’s expert judgment unless there is an identifiable legal error or an unreasonable conclusion.
Finding no such error, the court disallowed Ashford Castle’s appeal.