Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD88428 Case Number: LCR12049 Section / Act: S20(1) Parties: SAXONE SHOE COMPANY - and - IRISH DISTRIBUTIVE AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRADE UNION |
Dispute concerning national rates of pay.
Recommendation:
5. Having considered the submissions from both parties, the Court
is satisfied that the present position whereby the parties
negotiate local rates should continue. The Court accordingly does
not recommend concession of the Union's claim.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Collins Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD88428 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12049
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
SECTION 20(1)
PARTIES: SAXONE SHOE COMPANY
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATED UNION OF EMPLOYERS)
AND
IRISH DISTRIBUTIVE AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRADE UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning national rates of pay.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company is a multiple shoe retailer, operating branches in
all major centres throughout the country. In December, 1987, the
Union queried the rates being paid to workers in certain branches,
claiming they were lower than the rates applying in the majority
of the branches. It claimed that there had been tacit agreement
with previous management to have the Dublin Distributive Trade
rate paid in all the branches but that in Wexford, Waterford,
Cork, Drogheda and Kilkenny, local rates were being paid. It
subsequently sought a meeting with Management to discuss
negotiating national rates of pay. This was rejected by
Management as it did not deem it appropriate to move from local
negotiations into national discussions on pay rates. As the
Company declined an invitation to discuss the issue at a
conciliation conference, the Union referred the matter to the
Labour Court under Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act,
1969, agreeing beforehand to be bound by the Court's
recommendation. A Court hearing was held on the 15th September,
1988.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The understanding which the Union had with the previous
Management had been partly implemented but following the
change of Management, the Company embarked on a
rationalisation programme resulting initially in closures and
redundancies. When these changes had been completed it was
reported that there were differences in rates of pay between
some of the branches. As there already existed an anomaly in
the length of the working week - those on the Dublin rate had
the shortest working week (37½ hours), the Union sought to
rectify the situation in consultation with the Company but
was met with a total refusal, even to discuss the issue.
3. 2. There is no justification for the situation where a
minority of the workers in the Company's employment, most of
whom work a longer working week than their colleagues (40
hours compared to 37½), are being treated less favourably than
the majority of the workers.
3. As there are less than twenty workers involved, concession
of this claim would not be very costly for the Company.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENT:
4. 1. Since negotiations commenced between the FUE and the
Union, local rates of pay and conditions of employment have
been negotiated at local level in each location throughout the
country and such arrangements continue to the present day.
These negotiations take into account local conditions and are
conducted on both local traders and many multiple retailers
and would appear to have worked to the satisfaction of all
concerned over the years. It is unacceptable that the Company
should be singled out by the Union for a claim that rates of
pay be negotiated on a national level.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. Having considered the submissions from both parties, the Court
is satisfied that the present position whereby the parties
negotiate local rates should continue. The Court accordingly does
not recommend concession of the Union's claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court.
Evelyn Owens
__27th__September,__1988. ___________________
D. H. / M. F. Deputy Chairman