Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD86882 Case Number: LCR11030 Section / Act: S67 Parties: CASH & CO. LTD - and - IDATU |
Dispute concerning a change in the salary negotiating procedures of eleven middle management personnel.
Recommendation:
5. The Court has given careful consideration to two major issues
of principle which have been raised in this case.
(a) In the first issue, on the question of the right of the
Union members to withdraw from the annual review procedure
and have rates negotiated collectively by the Union, the
Court as a matter of principle would not recommend against
this right.
(b) On the second issue the Court does not find the Union's case
for direct application of the general FUE/IDATU agreement to
the particular group of staff sustainable as it is clear
that no direct relationship has existed at any time in the
past.
It seems to the Court that the case before it arises from an
unfortunate delay which occurred in dealing with the annual
reviews in the recent past which also coincided with a level of
increases which reflected the trading circumstances of the
Company.
Taking the conclusions at (a) and (b) into account and bearing in
mind the relative weakness of the group as a negotiating unit the
Court is of the opinion that the workers concerned should for the
time being at least continue with their colleagues within the
annual review system.
And this the Court recommends.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr McHenry Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD86882 THE LABOUR COURT LCR11030
CC861519 INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
LABOUR COURT RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR11030
PARTIES: CASH AND COMPANY LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATED UNION OF EMPLOYERS)
AND
IRISH DISTRIBUTIVE AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRADE UNION
Subject:
1. Dispute concerning a change in the salary negotiating
procedures of eleven middle management personnel.
Background:
2. The vast majority of workers (approximately 200) employed by
the Company (which is part of the Switzer Group) are represented
by the Union. Their wages and conditions of employment are
Union negotiated each year as part of the Cork Retail Drapery and
Allied Trades settlement. The eleven workers concerned here are
members of middle management staff whose rates of pay are agreed
with the Managing Director at the time of their appointment and
their salaries are reviewed with effect from April each year. The
salary reviews are carried out on an individual assessment basis.
The salary review system also applies to 152 workers employed
country-wide by the Switzer Group. In August, 1986, the workers
here concerned expressed dissatisfaction at the way the annual
review system was operating as they considered the increases they
had received over the past couple of years had fallen behind those
received by other workers, and also there had been a delay in the
review process. In September, 1986, the workers indicated that
they wished to be represented by their Union in salary increase
negotiations and to have future salary adjustments in line with
Union negotiated pay round increases for other staff in the store.
The Company rejected this proposal and the matter was referred to
the conciliation service of the Labour Court on 15th September,
1986. A conciliation conference was held on 4th November, 1986.
As no agreement could be reached both parties agreed to refer the
issue to the Labour Court for investigation and recommendation. A
Labour Court hearing was held in Cork on 21st January, 1987, a
date suitable to both parties.
Union's arguments:
3. (a) The workers are fully entitled to union representation
in the negotiation of pay and conditions and are
entitled to equal treatment with staff who are
subordinate to them in the matter of cost of living pay
round increases. They should in no circumstances do
worse than their subordinates on this issue.
(b) Existing differentials should not be eroded. This can
best be avoided through the application to the workers
in question of the Union-negotiated wage increases.
(c) The Union rejects as misleading the argument that the
workers are likely to do better under Company
arrangements than through the application of
Union-negotiated wage round increases. What is
important, the Union believes, is not simply "to
contrast the monies that would have been earned under
the FUE/IDATU wage agreements as against what was
actually earned", - it is accepted that no problem
existed prior to 1985 in any event - but to ensure the
existence of a mechanism which ensures that the value
of earnings is maintained. The implications of any
settlement which is less in percentage terms than that
obtained by other employees are self-evident. (Details
supplied to the Court).
Company's arguments:
4. (i) The Company does not accept that differentials or
fixed relativities have ever existed between the
salaries paid to these management personnel and the
rate of pay for any particular category covered by
formal Union agreements. Neither is it possible to
have a defined relationship between rates of pay when
one rate is adjusted by a single amount each 12
months and the others adjusted by phased payments
over variable periods of time.
(ii) The Company does not accept that management staff who
were involved in this claim should have their salary
reviewed in line with any Union agreement. As the
employees concerned are part of a much bigger group
covered by the annual review system, it would be
entirely inappropriate to have a switch from one
method to another. What in effect the Union is
asking the Court to do is to impose the right to
negotiate when these employees are covered by an
annual review system within which they have a right
to discuss their personal situations. The Company
does not accept that it has treated its management
staff in any way less favourably than those covered
by Union agreements.
(iii) The Company does not accept that these management
personnel have a right to a different arrangement to
that of their colleagues in the other stores within
the Group. As they are part of a Group involving 152
people, this case clearly has implications for other
management personnel throughout the whole Group.
(iv) There were delays over the past couple of years in
the review system due to a variety of reasons.
However, when the reviews were completed, they were
made retroactive to 1st April, 1986. Undertakings
have been given and it is hoped delays will not arise
in future years.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court has given careful consideration to two major issues
of principle which have been raised in this case.
(a) In the first issue, on the question of the right of the
Union members to withdraw from the annual review procedure
and have rates negotiated collectively by the Union, the
Court as a matter of principle would not recommend against
this right.
(b) On the second issue the Court does not find the Union's case
for direct application of the general FUE/IDATU agreement to
the particular group of staff sustainable as it is clear
that no direct relationship has existed at any time in the
past.
It seems to the Court that the case before it arises from an
unfortunate delay which occurred in dealing with the annual
reviews in the recent past which also coincided with a level of
increases which reflected the trading circumstances of the
Company.
Taking the conclusions at (a) and (b) into account and bearing in
mind the relative weakness of the group as a negotiating unit the
Court is of the opinion that the workers concerned should for the
time being at least continue with their colleagues within the
annual review system.
And this the Court recommends.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court.
John O'Connell
___________________
27th__February,__1987.
M. D. / M. F. Deputy Chairman.