Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD9132 Case Number: LCR13182 Section / Act: S67 Parties: DUBLIN AND DUN LAOGHAIRE - and - IRISH DISTRIBUTIVE AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRADE UNION |
Dispute concerning the implementation date of a pay round in respect of approximately 4,000 workers.
Recommendation:
5. The Court has considered the submissions made by the parties.
It is quite satisfied that the Union did not at any time formally
accept the provisions of the Programme for National Recovery but
it is equally true that they have accepted benefits deriving there
from and the terms offered and accepted by them with effect from
the 1st October, 1988 are undistinguishable from the terms of the
P.N.R. The designation of the various phased increases does not
have any relevance to the case. The Court therefore recommends
that the Employers offer and the Union accept the terms and final
phase of the P.N.R. with effect from 1st October, 1990 to apply
for a period of twelve months therefrom.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr Keogh Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD9132 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13182
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: DUBLIN AND DUN LAOGHAIRE
DRAPERY FOOTWEAR AND ALLIED TRADES
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATION OF IRISH EMPLOYERS)
and
IRISH DISTRIBUTIVE AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRADE UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning the implementation date of a pay round in
respect of approximately 4,000 workers.
BACKGROUND:
2. In June, 1987 the Union submitted a claim in respect of the
27th wage round. Agreement was reached between the Employers and
the Union for increases of 3% + 2% over a fourteen month period
from 1st August, 1987 to 30th September, 1988. During the course
of the 27th wage round the Programme for National Recovery
(P.N.R.) was agreed between the Social Partners. On the 30th
September, 1988 the Union submitted a new wage claim. The
Employers and the Union agreed the pay terms of the P.N.R. In
September, 1989 the Employers offered to implement the second
phase of the pay element of the P.N.R. and the terms were agreed
from 1st October, 1989 to 30th September, 1990. On the 10th
September, 1990 the Employers offered to implement the third and
final phase of the pay element of the P.N.R. The Union rejected
this offer on the basis that the P.N.R. ran for the duration of
the 27th, 28th and 29th wage rounds and claimed a new trade wage
round or the terms of the new programme. The Employers rejected
the Union's claim. Local discussions failed to resolve the issue
which was referred to the conciliation service of the Labour Court
on the 8th November, 1990. A conciliation conference was held on
the 6th December, 1990 but no agreement was reached. The dispute
was referred to the Labour Court on the 31st December, 1990. A
Court hearing was held on the 31st January, 1991.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Employers and the Union freely entered into an
agreement in respect of the 27th wage round which provided for
a longer agreement than the P.N.R. (14 months instead of 12)
and higher wage increases than the P.N.R. (3% + 2% instead of
an average of 3%). The P.N.R. was not a feature of the
discussions between the Employers and the Union and was not in
existence at that time. The Employers are now seeking to
apply the timing of phase one of the P.N.R. retrospectively.
Such a course of action would place the workers concerned a
full year behind other workers in respect of the commencement
date for any new pay deal.
2. According to the Employers' logic, if the parties had made
an alternative arrangement in respect of two or in respect of
all three of the P.N.R. phases, the workers concerned would
now have to wait until October, 1992 or even October, 1993
before the terms of any new programme could be applied.
3. The wage agreements made between the Union and the
Employers in respect of the 28th and 29th Wage Rounds made no
reference whatsoever to the P.N.R. They were two separate
one-year deals containing the pay terms only of the P.N.R.
4. Under the heading of "Introduction" in paragraph 3 of the
P.N.R. from the Government Publications Office dated October,
1987 it is stated -
"This Programme will cover the period to end - 1990"
Section 2 of the document deals with "Macroeconomic
policies" and reference is made to "---- the years 1988,
1989, and 1990."
This concurs with the Union's view that the new Programme, if
agreed, should commence from 1st October, 1990.
5. The 27th Wage Round pay deal was not made pending the
P.N.R., it ran concurrently with Phase One of the P.N.R. and
brought the workers concerned into line with Phase Two.
Nowhere in the P.N.R. is there provision for a re-scheduling
of the Programme whether other and alternative arrangements
have been made. What the Employers are attempting to do is
contrary to the P.N.R. itself.
6. In the draft proposals for the Programme for Social
Economic Development Clause 6 dealing with the date of
implementation states:
"Except where otherwise agreed at local level, this
Agreement shall apply from the expiry dates of the
current Employer/Union agreements."
The current or last agreement expired on 31st September, 1990.
Logically therefore, the new deal should apply from 1st
October, 1990. Failure to do so must be contrary to the new
Programme which would put the Employers in the unique position
of being in breach of both the old and the new wage
programmes.
EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Union is attempting to circumvent the terms of the
P.N.R. despite the importance of honouring their obligations
under the agreement. The trade agreement was outstanding from
1st August, 1987 and trade discussions on a pay agreement
concluded on 22nd September, 1987. The Union agreed to
recommend a proposal for acceptance. These trade discussions
pre-dated the discussions at National level which led to the
P.N.R. The P.N.R. was ratified by I.C.T.U. on 19th November,
1987. Thus the trade discussions were concluded before the
question of a National Agreement in the private sector arose.
2. The Union has sought the implementation of the 39 hour
week where applicable. Their members have benefited from the
tax concessions provided in the agreement and also the
favourable economic climate created by the National Agreement.
The Union cannot be selective in their approach to the various
provisions of the Agreement.
3. The concept of equating pay/wage rounds to the National
Agreement is totally irrelevant. There is a wide spread of
expiry dates of agreements under the P.N.R. This spread
resulted from the period of local bargaining between 1982 and
1987. Some agreements under the P.N.R. do not expire until
1992. The vast majority of agreements expire in 1991. Thus
there is nothing unusual in the commencement/expiry dates of
the agreement in the trade.
4. Employers have budgeted on the basis of the full pay terms
of the National Agreement. This cost certainty is essential
particularly as labour costs comprise a significant proportion
of total costs in the retail trade.
5. There are many employments within the Dublin drapery trade
where various categories of employees have accepted the third
phase of the P.N.R. Any deviation from the application of the
full pay terms of the agreement in this instance will
undoubtedly create considerable potential for difficulties in
these employments.
6. There are a number examples where I.D.A.T.U. members have
recently accepted the application of phase 3 of the P.N.R. in
the retail trade generally. These workers have a similar
history of pay progression as has already been outlined. In
addition, I.N.U.V.G.A.T.A. members covered by the Dublin
Grocery J.I.C. have accepted phase 3 of the P.N.R. from 1st
November, 1990.
7. This claim directly relates to the Dublin and Dun
Laoghaire Drapery Footwear and Allied Trades but will also
have a direct and immediate impact on the retail trade
throughout the country. It could also have repercussions
outside of the retail trade.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court has considered the submissions made by the parties.
It is quite satisfied that the Union did not at any time formally
accept the provisions of the Programme for National Recovery but
it is equally true that they have accepted benefits deriving there
from and the terms offered and accepted by them with effect from
the 1st October, 1988 are undistinguishable from the terms of the
P.N.R. The designation of the various phased increases does not
have any relevance to the case. The Court therefore recommends
that the Employers offer and the Union accept the terms and final
phase of the P.N.R. with effect from 1st October, 1990 to apply
for a period of twelve months therefrom.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
__________________________
12th February, 1991 Deputy Chairman.
T.O'D./J.C.