Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD89391 Case Number: LCR12470 Section / Act: S67 Parties: DUBLIN SUPERMARKETS COVERED BY THE NATIONAL - and - IRISH NATIONAL UNION OF VINTNERS GROCERS |
Claim for the implementation of a 39 hour week.
Recommendation:
5. In light of the submissions made by the parties the Court
recommends as follows,
(a) (i) The establishment of a thirty nine (39) hour week
for those workers currently working a 40 hour week
of 9 to 6.15 with a 1.25 hour lunch break.
(ii) An adjustment of the basic rate accordingly.
The above to be on the understanding that the reduction
will be implemented so as to avoid loss of trading hours.
(b) This to be implemented from date of acceptance of this
recommendation by the workers concerned.
(c) Having regard to the formal agreement of 5th March, 1984
the Court is of the opinion that the basic hourly rate of
part timers must also be adjusted as a consequence of (a)
above. The Court therefore recommends accordingly.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr Shiel Mr Devine
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD89391 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12470
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: DUBLIN SUPERMARKETS COVERED BY THE NATIONAL
JOINT INDUSTRIAL COUNCIL FOR THE
GROCERY AND ALLIED TRADES
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATED UNION OF EMPLOYERS)
and
IRISH NATIONAL UNION OF VINTNERS GROCERS
AND ALLIED TRADES ASSISTANTS
SUBJECT:
1. Claim for the implementation of a 39 hour week.
BACKGROUND:
2. The claim concerns 3,000 workers who are employed in the
Dublin Supermarkets which are covered by the National Joint
Industrial Council for Grocery and Allied Trades (N.J.I.C.). The
Union's claim is for a reduction in the working week from 40 to 39
hours for all workers on a forty hour week retrospective to 1st
February, 1989. The Union is also claiming the maintenance of the
established link between full time employees and pro-rata hourly
paid staff. The employers have rejected the claim on the grounds
that it is of a cost increasing nature and is therefore precluded
under the terms of the Programme for National Recovery (P.N.R.).
The claims were discussed at meetings of the N.J.I.C. which were
held on the 4th April and 22nd May, 1989 but no agreement was
reached. The dispute was referred to the Labour Court for
investigation and recommendation on the 22nd May, 1989. A Court
hearing was held on the 30th June, 1989.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. Under the terms of the P.N.R. and the subsequent
guidelines on working hours, the Union feels justified in
seeking an immediate reduction en bloc of 1 hour without loss
for all workers employed on a 40 hour week as from 1st
February, 1989. A sub 40 hour week is the norm within many
retail grocery outlets (details supplied to the Court). It
should be noted that hourly rates and overtime rates in these
outlets are calculated on the basis of "the rate" divided by
the number of hours worked i.e. 37.50 or 38.50 which ever is the
case. The Union has agreed that such a reduction in the
working week will not affect trading hours.
3. 2. The Union is seeking retrospection to 1st February, 1989
because the original claim was lodged with the N.J.I.C. in
1988 prior to the expiry date of the previous pay round.
3. Once it has been established that a new basic working week
of 39 hours will apply then the appropriate rate for pro-rata
hourly employees will be the new hourly rate of full-time
staff. The Union is seeking concession of this claim because
there has been established, since 1984, a formal relationship
between rates and conditions of pro-rata and full-time
workers. This relationship is confirmed by way of agreement
(dated 5th March, 1984) between the parties to the N.J.I.C.
EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. Staff in the industry are paid in respect of hours worked
between 9.00 a.m. and 6.15 p.m. with 1.25 hours for lunch, 5
days per week. Only a minority of staff however remain until
6.15 p.m., the remainder depart well before this time. The
one hour reduction applies to those who work 40 hours and
those who depart prior to 6.15 p.m. do not come within the
scope of the agreement in respect of reduced working hours.
2. The employers are willing to consider the question of the
reduction of the working week to 39 hours provided that the
actual working time within the trade is clarified, that
trading would not be affected and that no increase in costs
would accrue on foot of the reduction. These parameters are
fully consistent with the terms of the P.N.R. The condition
that costs should not increase is important bearing in mind
the level of overtime worked in the industry and that late
night trading payments are made on the basis of double time.
A significant number of employees in the trade are employed on
a part-time basis.
3. With regard to part-time employees it should be noted that
the Framework Agreement on working hours concluded by the
parties states. "This agreement applies to employees whose
normal working week is at or above 40 hours and only such
employees shall benefit from it."
4. The supermarkets covered by the N.J.I.C. are operating in
a very competitive market place characterised by negligible
growth and extremely tight margins. Many competitors are
operating with lesser payroll costs paying wage rates well
below those negotiated at N.J.I.C. level. Many of these
businesses employ staff who are not unionised. The employers
believe that an unwarranted increase in payroll costs will
worsen their competitive disadvantage in the market place.
Their approach to this issue is reasonable and fully
consistent with the agreed framework. On foot of a previous
Labour Court Recommendation (L.C.R. 12232) part-time staff
have been awarded an increase in pay greater than that
envisaged by the employers by virtue of the #4.00 increase in
basic pay to the lower points of the pay scale.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. In light of the submissions made by the parties the Court
recommends as follows,
(a) (i) The establishment of a thirty nine (39) hour week
for those workers currently working a 40 hour week
of 9 to 6.15 with a 1.25 hour lunch break.
(ii) An adjustment of the basic rate accordingly.
The above to be on the understanding that the reduction
will be implemented so as to avoid loss of trading hours.
(b) This to be implemented from date of acceptance of this
recommendation by the workers concerned.
(c) Having regard to the formal agreement of 5th March, 1984
the Court is of the opinion that the basic hourly rate of
part timers must also be adjusted as a consequence of (a)
above. The Court therefore recommends accordingly.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
___________________
__21st___July, 1989 Deputy Chairman
T.O'D/J.C.