Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD89861 Case Number: LCR12685 Section / Act: S67 Parties: PENNEYS LIMITED - and - IRISH DISTRIBUTIVE AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRADES UNION |
Claim by the Union on behalf of approximately 200 workers for an extension of Christmas leave arrangements.
Recommendation:
3. Having considered the submissions made and having regard to
the different trading arrangements of the stores in question, the
Court does not recommend concession of the Union's claim. The
Court does recommend that the Company offer of one additional days
leave be implemented on an ongoing basis.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr Keogh Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD89861 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12685
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: PENNEYS LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATION OF IRISH EMPLOYERS)
and
IRISH DISTRIBUTIVE AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRADES UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim by the Union on behalf of approximately 200 workers for
an extension of Christmas leave arrangements.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company offers a special Christmas leave package to
workers in the Mary Street branch in return for additional working
hours in December, such as late night and sunday trading. In
1988, the Mary Street staff received 3 days leave together with
improved time off on christmas eve and new years eve. The 1989
package allows for 4 days leave, a long weekend off every 4 weeks,
(instead of every five), and other minor improvements. Staff in
the Company's 7 other stores in Dublin have been seeking the same
leave arrangements. The Company claims that since the Mary Street
store is more profitable than the other stores, it was possible to
offer extended leave in that location. None of the other branches
can afford to have extended leave at christmas. In 1988, the
Union accepted a Company offer of one additional days leave plus
standard overtime rates pending resolution of the issue through
agreed procedures. On 1st February, 1989, the issue was referred
to the conciliation service of the Labour Court. No agreement
could be reached at a conciliation conference held on 6th March,
1989, and on 27th November, 1989, the matter was referred to the
Labour Court for investigation and recommendation. The Court
investigated the matter on 8th December, 1989.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The co-operation given by the workers in the 7 other
Dublin stores is identical to that given in Mary Street.
Extra late nights are worked and Sunday working is also done.
The very pointed nature of the uneven treatment exercised by
the Company between its Mary Street staff and other staff is
clear from the provision of a Christmas dinner in Mary Street
which does not apply anywhere else. Given the level of
co-operation by the workers, the Union believes that the
arrangements for the Mary Street store should be extended to
all Dublin stores over an agreed period of time.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. It is a well established practice in the Company that
Christmas trading arrangements are agreed at individual store
level to reflect the different trading conditions applying in
each store. A unique agreement was concluded in 1986, in the
Mary Street store, which reflected the conditions applying in
that store.
2. The claim is in breach of the terms of the Programme for
National Recovery which provide that no further cost
increasing claims would be served. Concession of this claim
will have serious cost implications for the Company in its
locations throughout the country.
3. The Court in L.C.R. 12279 has held that there should not
be an automatic transfer of Christmas trading arrangements
agreed in one outlet to another.
RECOMMENDATION:
3. Having considered the submissions made and having regard to
the different trading arrangements of the stores in question, the
Court does not recommend concession of the Union's claim. The
Court does recommend that the Company offer of one additional days
leave be implemented on an ongoing basis.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
______________________
14th December, 1989. Deputy Chairman
B.O'N/J.C.