Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD91221 Case Number: LCR13310 Section / Act: S20(1) Parties: DUNNES STORES (CORNELSCOURT) LIMITED - and - IRISH DISTRIBUTIVE & ADMINISTRATIVE TRADE UNION |
Dispute concerning the failure by the Company to introduce a pension scheme.
Recommendation:
4. The Court regrets that the Company chose not to be represented
at the hearing and as a consequence their views are not recorded
for evaluation.
The Union has indicated that the Management and Union at senior
level have had an initial meeting but the matter has fallen into
abeyance.
The Court recommends that these discussions be continued without
further delay with a view to seeking a positive conclusion on the
introduction of a pension scheme for the workers concerned.
Division: CHAIRMAN Mr Keogh Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD91221 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13310
THE LABOUR COURT
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 20(1) INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES: DUNNES STORES (CORNELSCOURT) LIMITED
and
IRISH DISTRIBUTIVE & ADMINISTRATIVE TRADE UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning the failure by the Company to introduce a
pension scheme.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Union is in dispute with the Company because of its
failure to introduce a pension scheme at the store. In February,
1990, the Union wrote to the staff manageress seeking to discuss
the matter. The Union were informed verbally that the issue was
being discussed at a high level between the Company and the Union.
Following investigation by the Union, it transpired that only one
meeting had taken place and no further progress was made. The
staff has service of between 6 and 21 years each. The Labour
Court investigation took place on 26th May, 1991 under Section
20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. The Union agreed to
be bound by the recommendation of the Court. The Company
indicated in writing, prior to the hearing that it would not be
represented and no representative of the Company attended.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Company has ignored the staff request for a pension
scheme. The full time permanent staff have up to 21 years
service with the Company. The cost of buying additional years
of service is increasing because of the delay in resolving the
matter. The permanent staff are aged 30 to 50 and are anxious
to provide for their retirement.
2. The holding Company was formed in 1944 and has a
turnover of #600 million. It is the largest privately owned
company in Ireland. The Company's main competitors have
pensions schemes for their staff. The Union is seeking
serious discussions with the Company with a view to having a
pension scheme introduced for the workers within 12 months
from the date of the recommendation.
RECOMMENDATION:
4. The Court regrets that the Company chose not to be represented
at the hearing and as a consequence their views are not recorded
for evaluation.
The Union has indicated that the Management and Union at senior
level have had an initial meeting but the matter has fallen into
abeyance.
The Court recommends that these discussions be continued without
further delay with a view to seeking a positive conclusion on the
introduction of a pension scheme for the workers concerned.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Heffernan
13th June, 1991 ---------------
J.F./U.S. Chairman