Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD8812 Case Number: LCR11793 Section / Act: S67 Parties: QUINNSWORTH - and - IRISH DISTRIBUTIVE AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRADE UNION |
Claims on behalf of thirty five workers for:- (a) pay parity with Limerick, and (b) reduction in the working week.
Recommendation:
Claim (a) - pay parity with Limerick:
5. The Court finds that, while the scales are out of line with
the two nearest stores, they are not out of line with the rates in
other stores throughout the country. The Court does not,
therefore, recommend concession of the claim.
Claim (b) - reduction in the working week:
6. The Court recommends that this claim be deferred pending the
outcome of the discussion on the reduction of the working week as
provided for in the agreement reached under the aegis of the
Programme for National Recovery.
Division: CHAIRMAN Mr McHenry Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD8812 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR11793
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: QUINNSWORTH
and
IRISH DISTRIBUTIVE AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRADE UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claims on behalf of thirty five workers for:-
(a) pay parity with Limerick, and
(b) reduction in the working week.
BACKGROUND:
2. On 10th August, 1987 the Union submitted a claim under the
27th Wage Round on behalf of workers in the Shannon branch of
Quinnsworth which included claims for parity of rates with the
Company's Limerick stores and a reduction in the working week from
40 hours to 37.50 hours which already applies in Limerick. The wage
round claim was subsequently divided with agreement being reached
on the cost of living increase and the parity claims being
referred to the Labour Court. These claims were the subject of a
conciliation conference on 10th December, 1987 but as no
settlement was reached the matters were referred to the Labour
Court for investigation and recommendation. A Court investigation
into the dispute was held in Limerick on 23rd March, 1988.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Shannon store is located approximately half way
between the Quinnsworth stores in Limerick and Ennis. The
wage rates applicable in Limerick have had a major influence
in determining the rates in Ennis. In the drapery and
footwear sector the rates are the same in both locations.
However there is no trade agreement in Shannon and it is felt
that the Limerick influence on the Ennis rates has passed the
Shannon store by up to now.
2. There is a considerable difference between the rates in
Limerick and Shannon (details supplied to the Court).
3. Part-time staff are adversely affected as a result of
the lower rates and longer working week. A recent national
agreement conceded 75% of the first point of the scale to
part-time staff who do not operate cash registers in return
for agreement on disputes procedures. In Shannon this gives
#1.67 per hour over a 40 hour week while in Limerick it is
#1.99 per hour over a 37.50 hour week.
3. 4. The turnover of the Shannon store compares more than
favourably with the Roxboro store in Limerick where a 37.50 hour
week and the higher rate apply. The Shannon store has little
competition in comparison to Limerick and therefore
competitiveness is not an issue.
5. The Shannon store's trading hours are similar to those
in Ennis, including 2 late nights, yet the workers in Ennis
have a 37.50 hour week.
6. Not alone do the Shannon staff work longer hours but
they also suffer when it comes to calculating their overtime
entitlements.
7. In the Programme for National Recovery there is a
commitment to discuss a reduction in the 40 hour working week
this year. By agreeing to a reduction in Shannon now the
Company would be responding to a long held grievance by the
staff.
COMPANY'S CASE:
4. 1. It is a feature of the retail trade that rates of pay
and conditions are negotiated separately in each location.
Agreement reached invariably reflects the circumstances
prevailing in the particular location and results in different
rates of pay and conditions in the various locations. This
practice has been upheld by the Labour Court on various
occasions.
2. Rates of pay and conditions in Shannon compare
favourably with those in a range of provincial branches
(details supplied to the Court).
3. The 27th Round pay increases applied in Shannon are
identical to those applied in virtually all the Company's
branches in the Round.
4. The cost of conceding the Union's claim is considerable
and the Company is not in a position to incur any further cost
increases in Shannon. The branch is facing an increase of
5.02% in payroll costs in the Company year from 1st April,
1988 through to 31st March, 1989. This has to be compared
with predicted inflation of 3% approximately and a budgeted
sales increase of the order of 2.50%.
5. Consideration must also be given to the fact that the
prosperity of Shannon depends on the prosperity of the
industrial estate. The effects of the current recession on
manufacturing industry have been reflected in sales in Shannon
which have shown no growth for some time.
4. 6. The Company adjusted the existing scale in Shannon on
1st May, 1985 in agreement with the I.T.G.W.U. The effect of
this adjustment which is reflected in the current rates, shows
that the top point in Shannon compares vary favourably with
Limerick given the different nature of the Centres involved.
In 1986 the Company increased the Christmas Bonus payable at
Shannon from a .50 to 1 week's basic pay and recently the
Company has agreed increases for part-time staff in I.D.A.T.U.
which will cost the branch approximately #3,320 p.a.
7. Any concession in Shannon would have serious cost
implications for the Company as a whole. A large number of
branches would feel justified in making similar claims. In
this context it should be pointed out that the vast majority
of provincial branches operate a 40 hour week as do all Dublin
supermarkets.
RECOMMENDATION:
Claim (a) - pay parity with Limerick:
5. The Court finds that, while the scales are out of line with
the two nearest stores, they are not out of line with the rates in
other stores throughout the country. The Court does not,
therefore, recommend concession of the claim.
Claim (b) - reduction in the working week:
6. The Court recommends that this claim be deferred pending the
outcome of the discussion on the reduction of the working week as
provided for in the agreement reached under the aegis of the
Programme for National Recovery.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John M Horgan
21st April, 1988 -----------------
R.B./U.S. Chairman