Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD90685 Case Number: LCR13153 Section / Act: S67 Parties: PENNEYS - and - IRISH DISTRIBUTIVE AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRADE UNION |
Dispute concerning the appointment of flexible full-time workers.
Recommendation:
5. The Court is satisfied that the Registered Agreement does not
apply to the store which is the subject of this dispute. The
Court notes that previous negotiations appear to have taken place
on the understanding that it did apply. The Court accordingly
recommends that the parties enter into negotiations as to working
arrangements with particular reference to hours of work etc. which
should apply in this store.
Division: Ms Owens Mr McHenry Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD90685 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13153
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: PENNEYS
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATION OF IRISH EMPLOYERS)
and
IRISH DISTRIBUTIVE AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRADE UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning the appointment of flexible full-time
workers.
BACKGROUND:
2. On 24th July, 1990 the Union wrote to the Company seeking the
creation of more full-time positions in the Rathfarnham store. A
meeting was held on 5th October, 1990 at which the Union requested
that the Company comply with the new full-time/part-time ratios in
the County Borough of Dublin and Borough of Dun Laoghaire Drapery
Trade Agreement. The Company agreed to examine staffing levels,
however its position is that the Drapery Trade Agreement does not
apply to the Rathfarnham store as it is located outside of the
County Borough of Dublin. On 23rd October, 1990 the Company
informed the Union that it would be advertising four flexible
full-time vacancies in the Rathfarnham store. The workers
appointed to these posts would have 35 hours of a total of 37.50
hours fixed each week and the remaining 2.50 hours would be worked
on either Thursday or Friday night. The Company operates a Monday
to Friday arrangement with full-time staff in Rathfarnham. The
Union objected to the "flexible" element of these full-time
positions and on 20th October, 1990 the matter was referred to the
conciliation service of the Labour Court. A conciliation
conference was held on 20th November, 1990 at which agreement
could not be reached and on 20th November, 1990 the matter was
referred to the Labour Court for investigation and recommendation.
The Court investigated the dispute on 20th December, 1990.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. While there are flexible full-time staff in the Company's
Naas and Ennis branches, they were introduced following
threats of closure on both occasions. In addition, the Union
met with the Company some weeks ago to discuss the same issue
in respect of the Clondalkin store. The Company clearly
intends to use so called flexible full-time staff in all
Dublin stores as soon as it gets the go ahead from the Labour
Court. No attempt has been made to negotiate on this issue
either locally or at trade level and it is the Union's opinion
that adjustments to the registered agreement are appropriate
to trade level talks rather than on a store by store basis.
2. The flexi full-time staff will be used to eliminate
overtime rates of pay as has happened in Naas and Ennis. It
is unrealistic to expect any degree of control to be exercised
in respect of the "flexible" worker when it comes to hours of
work. The Court should uphold the Drapery Trade Agreement and
assist the Union in protecting the conditions contained in it.
In L.C.R. No. 12632 the Court upheld the appointment of
additional full-time posts without including the flexi element
and should now recommend that any full-time appointments
agreed between the Company and the Union should be made in
line with the existing full-time positions in the Rathfarnham
store.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company has responded in an extremely positive fashion
to the Union's original request for the creation of more
full-time positions. The Company's proposal to create 4
additional full-time flexible positions is a totally
reasonable one and management would also expect to give these
staff adequate advance notice of the late night they will be
required to work. The deployment of staff at times when they
are most required is not a new departure in the retail trade.
There are many examples of staff being recruited to work
outside of the "traditional hours" in the trade in response to
changes in purchasing behaviour of customers (details supplied
to the Court). These changes have taken place in order to
ensure that adequate staffing levels are maintained during
peak trading periods.
2. The Company is not in position to create additional
full-time positions and incur unnecessary extra costs as a
result. The Company's proposals should also be seen in the
context of the opening of the new shopping complex in
Tallaght. This obviously creates significant additional
competition for the Rathfarnham store which must be able to
compete on a similar basis to those stores operating in the
new centre. The Company is only prepared in this instance to
create additional full-time positions on the basis proposed.
It strikes a reasonable balance between the Union's request
for the creation of full-time positions and the Company's
requirements to deploy staff at times of the week when they
are most needed.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court is satisfied that the Registered Agreement does not
apply to the store which is the subject of this dispute. The
Court notes that previous negotiations appear to have taken place
on the understanding that it did apply. The Court accordingly
recommends that the parties enter into negotiations as to working
arrangements with particular reference to hours of work etc. which
should apply in this store.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Evelyn Owens
______________________________
16th January, 1991 Deputy Chairman.
U.M./J.C.