Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD89224 Case Number: LCR12467 Section / Act: S20(1) Parties: DUNNES STORES (GEORGES STREET) LIMITED - and - IRISH DISTRIBUTIVE AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRADE UNION |
Alleged failure by the Company to implement terms relating to extra leave, contained in the agreement concerning late-night trading in Dublin city-centre.
Recommendation:
5. The Court has come to the view that it would not be a
reasonable extension of the 1987 agreement on late-night trading
to apply all its terms in respect of only one occasion in
December, 1988. Accordingly, the Court does not recommend
concession of this particular claim.
Division: Mr Fitzgerald Mr Shiel Mr O'Murchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD89224 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12467
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
SECTION 20(1)
PARTIES: DUNNES STORES (GEORGES STREET) LIMITED
AND
IRISH DISTRIBUTIVE AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRADE UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Alleged failure by the Company to implement terms relating to
extra leave, contained in the agreement concerning late-night
trading in Dublin city-centre.
BACKGROUND:
2. In 1987 an agreement was reached between the Union and the
Drapery Branch of the Federated Union of Employers (FUE) relating
to late-night trading in Dublin. Clause 7 of this agreement
states:
"...one day's leave to apply to each full-time employee
in houses which operate late-night trading in
accordance with the terms of this agreement. This
one day's leave to be taken within six months of the
commencement of late-night trading. The existing
agreement on pro-rata holidays for part-timers to
apply to this one day off."
In December, 1988, Dunnes Stores, Georges Street, availed of the
extended opening hours on one occasion. The Union subsequently
sought an extra day's leave for the staff but this was rejected by
the Company which argued that the agreement related only to stores
where late-night trading was a feature throughout the year. On
the 9th March, 1989, the Union referred the claim 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 24th April, 1989. The Company did
not attend and the Court decided to forward a copy of the Union's
submission to the Company and the FUE for their comments.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The extra day's leave is granted when a store avails of
the option of late-night trading. Late-night trading need not
be an on-going feature to qualify for it.
2. The Court is respectfully requested to recommend that
Dunnes Stores (Georges Street) grant the claimants one day's
leave as per the agreement relating to late-night trading in
the city centre.
4. In its reply to the Union submission, the Company reiterated
what it had said to the Union at local level - that the agreement
related only to stores where late-night trading was an on-going
feature and that as it had availed of the extended hours on only
one occasion in December, 1988, the agreement did not apply.
In its response, the FUE pointed out to the Court that for a
number of years prior to 1987, Sunday trading and late-night
trading had applied in Dublin city centre for the month of
December only. It argued that both clauses 8 and 9 of the
agreement indicate that trading during the month of December was
already in place and would continue independent of the terms
agreed for late-night trading throughout the year. The relevant
clauses read as follows:-
8. With the exception of arrangements already agreed
for December, late-night trading shall be limited to
Thursday night only and Sunday trading shall not apply.
9. Where more advantageous terms were agreed in
respect of extra trading in December, 1986, that those
terms will continue for the December trading
arrangements in the future.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court has come to the view that it would not be a
reasonable extension of the 1987 agreement on late-night trading
to apply all its terms in respect of only one occasion in
December, 1988. Accordingly, the Court does not recommend
concession of this particular claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court,
Nicholas Fitzgerald
___14th___July,___1989. _______________________
D. H. / M. F. Deputy Chairman