Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD91242 Case Number: LCR13369 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: POWER SUPERMARKETS LIMITED - and - IRISH NATIONAL UNION OF VINTNERS', GROCERS' |
Dispute concerning the ratio of pro-rata staff to full-time staff.
Recommendation:
5. The Court, having considered the written and oral submissions
of the parties takes the view that given the variation in the
ratios of full-time to part-time staff which apply in competitive
establishments it would be appropriate to apply a 1:1 ratio as
sought by the Company subject to the conditions in the Company
proposal regarding permanent staff being implemented.
The Court, however, given the current ratios that apply in the
stores considers that this ratio should be achieved on a phased
basis in each branch following discussions between the parties.
The Court so recommends.
Division: MrMcGrath Mr Keogh Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD91242 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13369
THE LABOUR COURT
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES: POWER SUPERMARKETS LIMITED
AND
IRISH NATIONAL UNION OF VINTNERS', GROCERS'
AND ALLIED TRADES ASSISTANTS
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning the ratio of pro-rata staff to full-time
staff.
BACKGROUND:
2. Under the terms of a 1984 Joint Industrial Council (J.I.C.)
Agreement pro-rata staff may be employed in a ratio of one
pro-rata worker to every four full-time workers. A pro-rata
worker is a part-time staff member who normally works less hours
per week than the full-time basic weekly hours. The pro-rata
worker is paid the full-time hourly rate for hours worked and
enjoys full-time conditions on a pro-rata basis. In 1988 the
Union agreed a Ratio of 3 pro-ratas to 1 full-time worker with
another employer who is party to the J.I.C. In 1989, a dispute
arose between the Company and the Union in relation to the ratio
of pro-rata staff to full-time staff employed at the Company's
Artane Castle Branch. The Labour Court investigated the dispute
and issued the following recommendation on 5th September, 1990
(LCR13006):-
"RECOMMENDATION
The Court in normal circumstances, and particularly in
respect of a J.I.C. agreement, would call on the parties to
adhere to the terms of the agreement and through discussion
and agreement make such amendments as are necessary.
However, in the circumstances outlined to it in this case, as
alternative agreements are already in force with members of
the J.I.C., it is the view of the Court that the parties
(I.N.U.V.G.A.T.A. and Powers Supermarkets Limited) should
immediately enter discussions with a view to agreeing the
ratio of pro-rata to full-time staff, to apply in the Company
outlets, as soon as possible and in any case before 30th
October, 1990.
In the event the parties cannot reach agreement the Court is
prepared to assist.
The Court so recommends."
The Company and the Union subsequently entered discussions at
which a number of proposals and counter-proposals were discussed.
On 16th November, 1990 the Company issued revised proposals to the
Union in relation to the employment of new full-time staff and new
pro-rata staff (details supplied to the Court). The Company
proposals provided for (A) a ratio of 1 pro-rata worker to 1
full-time worker, (B) offered a once-off lump sum payment of #100
to full-time staff, and (C) offered up to 119 full-time jobs to
existing pro-rata staff. The Union responded by letter dated 13th
December, 1990 in which it outlined its proposals (details
supplied to the Court). The Union proposals provided for (A) a
ratio of 2 full-time workers to 1 pro-rata worker and (B) a 3%
increase on all basic rates from the date of agreement plus 3% in
12 months after the date of agreement. No agreement was reached
at local level discussions and the matter was referred on 28th
January, 1991 to the Conciliation Service of Labour Relations
Commission. Conciliation conferences were held on 8th March, 1991
and 8th April, 1991 at which the issue of the ratio of pro-rata
workers to full-time workers was not resolved. As it was not
possible to make progress on the parties proposals until the main
issue of the staffing ratio was agreed. The Labour Relations
Commission referred the dispute on 8th May, 1991 to the Labour
Court in accordance with Section 26(1)(a)(b) of the Industrial
Relations Act, 1990. The Court investigated the dispute on 7th
June, 1991.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Company is a highly successful one and has the
capacity to maintain higher levels of full-time staff than at
present. There is no economic reason for the Company to
increase the number of pro-rata workers. The Union is opposed
to any proposal that would reduce the number of full-time
jobs available by increasing the number of part-time workers.
2. The Company has sought an agreement similar to that
reached with another company in 1988. In 1988, the Company
concerned had major economic difficulties and the Union had
to take immediate action to secure jobs. Similar
circumstances do not exist in this Company as it is not in a
difficult trading position.
3. The Union's position as stated in its letter dated 13th
December, 1990 is fair and takes account of present economic
circumstances. It is offering major concessions on
productivity and flexibility which will reduce staff costs
for the Company.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company has consistently conformed to the
established major agreements on terms and conditions at
J.I.C. level. It is therefore legitimately entitled to
expect a similar agreement to that reached by the Union in
1988 with another employer (the only other employer that is
party to the J.I.C.).
2. The current actual ratio in the Company is approximately
1 pro-rata worker to 2 full-time workers. This places the
Company at a disadvantage to its' competitors in relation to
productivity and customer service. The Company's proposed
staffing arrangements are essential to the security of jobs
in a very competitive environment.
3. The Company has made a genuine effort to reach agreement
in the light of LCR13006. The staffing agreement sought is
modest and the concessions offered to existing staff are
generous.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court, having considered the written and oral submissions
of the parties takes the view that given the variation in the
ratios of full-time to part-time staff which apply in competitive
establishments it would be appropriate to apply a 1:1 ratio as
sought by the Company subject to the conditions in the Company
proposal regarding permanent staff being implemented.
The Court, however, given the current ratios that apply in the
stores considers that this ratio should be achieved on a phased
basis in each branch following discussions between the parties.
The Court so recommends.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
7th August, 1991 Tom McGrath
A.S. / M.O'C. _______________
Deputy Chairman