Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD90340 Case Number: LCR13036 Section / Act: S67 Parties: BYRNE CATERING LIMITED - and - CORK OPERATIVE BUTCHERS SOCIETY (COBS |
Claim on behalf of butchers employed in the Company's Limerick outlets for pay parity with their counterparts in Cork.
Recommendation:
6. The Court having considered all the issues raised by the
parties in their written and oral submissions recommends that the
Limerick town rate in all its aspects be applied to the workers
here concerned.
Division: MrMcGrath Mr Brennan Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD90340 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13036
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: BYRNE CATERING LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATION OF IRISH EMPLOYERS)
AND
CORK OPERATIVE BUTCHERS SOCIETY (COBS)
SUBJECT:
1. Claim on behalf of butchers employed in the Company's Limerick
outlets for pay parity with their counterparts in Cork.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company operates a total of twelve butcher shops in Cork,
Limerick and Waterford. It has two outlets in Limerick and has
been operating there since 1973.
3. Up to late 1989, the workers in Limerick were non-unionised.
Last October, the claimants joined COBS and sought parity of pay
rates with their counterparts in Cork. At that time the weekly
rates were as follows:-
CORK LIMERICK
Manager #270.00 (average) #236.92
Assistant Manager #201.50 #176.91
Butcher #182.13 #162.76
The Union also claimed that Cork butchers enjoyed a shorter
working week, longer annual leave and service pay and a sick pay
scheme. The parity claim was rejected by the Company on the basis
that the rates paid to the claimants were in line with the
Limerick town rate which it has always applied (these rates are
negotiated by the Limerick Distributive Trades and IDATU).
Following the failure of local discussions the Union referred the
matter to the conciliation service of the Labour Court on the 13th
February, 1990. No agreement was reached at a conciliation
conference on the 7th June (earliest suitable date) and the
dispute was referred to the Labour Court for investigation and
recommendation. A Court hearing was held in Limerick on the 21st
August, 1990 (earliest suitable date).
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. At local discussions the Company rejected the parity claim
on the basis that it would increase costs above those of its
competitors in Limerick. This is not true as, in late 1989,
the ITGWU struck a butcher's rate for Limerick which was
comparable to that which existed in Cork (details supplied to
the Court).
2. The Union rejects the Company argument that Limerick does
not perform as well economically as Cork. In proportion to
population, the unemployment level in Limerick is below that
in Cork and Limerick shops have comparable turnover and a more
favourable profit margin due to lower wage costs.
3. The Company has attempted to justify the lower rate on the
basis that it commenced trading as retail pork and bacon
outlets unlike contemporary beef butchers. The concept of
beef and pork butchers is effectively gone as most outlets,
including the Company's, now sell beef, lamb, bacon, pork and
poultry.
4. At the conciliation conference, the Company claimed that
the rate it paid in Limerick is based on the IDATU Cork Retail
Grocery Trade rate. There may be some validity in this as
this rate coincides with the wage slip of one of the
claimants. However, on detailed examination it can be seen
that the IDATU agreement commenced from the 1st September,
1989, but that these terms were not applied to the worker in
question until the 2nd December, 1989, nor was there any
retrospection paid (details of Cork IDATU rate plus copies of
claimants' wage slips supplied to the Court).
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
5. 1. There are considerable differences between the trading
circumstances of the Company in its home town, Cork and the
trading circumstances of the two Limerick operations. On each
occasion when the parties met to discuss this parity claim,
the Union rejected the variations in circumstances in trading
which the Company pointed to. The two Limerick outlets have
been among the weakest of the retail outlets operated by the
Company. For a considerable period of time now the Limerick
operations have been marginal in a trading context.
2. The staff of each of the Limerick retail outlets are
keenly aware of the situation and the weekly financial
statements produced by Management at both retail outlets would
be known to all employees. It has been clear over recent
months that the two Limerick stores are unable to sustain
their current levels of employment and that some necessary
retrenchment will have to be pursued (details supplied to the
Court).
5. 3. Historically, the Limerick town rate has operated in both
its Limerick outlets since their establishment. The town rate
has been adjusted in accordance with the discussions held
under each of the wage rounds with the Distributive Traders in
Limerick city. The town rate represents the cost of
distributive labour in the Limerick City area and accordingly
it is the rate paid by the majority of the Company's
competitors.
4. The ability of any organisation to pay a particular rate
of pay is directly related to the strength or weakness of its
business. It is clear that organisations who enjoy a low cost
base can better weather downturns in the trading situation.
It should be clearly understood that the Company in both its
Limerick operations does not enjoy any significant advantages
vis-a-vis its competition and while certain of its competitors
may be paying a higher rate it is clear that in overall terms
it cannot increase current rates without jeopardising the
ongoing future of the Limerick outlets.
5. Allied to the current claim for increased wages is the
prospect of a substantial rent review at the Company's
Crescent Shopping Centre premises. This rent review comes
against the background of a decline in the popularity of the
centre as a location to shop. This prospect further
underscores the pressure on the Company to rationalise its
Limerick operation and to re-state its response to this claim
of inability to pay any increase over and above the Limerick
town rate.
6. The Company has been applying the terms of the Programme
for National Recovery and considers this claim to be of a
cost-increasing nature and accordingly is outside the scope of
the Programme.
RECOMMENDATION:
6. The Court having considered all the issues raised by the
parties in their written and oral submissions recommends that the
Limerick town rate in all its aspects be applied to the workers
here concerned.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court,
Tom McGrath
__27th__September,__1990. ___________________
D. H. / M. F. Deputy Chairman