LCR13325

Subject:
Claim by the Union concerning the ratio of full-time to part-time workers/creation of full-time posts.

Recommendation:
5. Having considered the submissions of the parties, the Court
recommends that the Company adhere strictly to the terms of the
registered agreement. This adherence will determine the number of
permanent full-time staff to be employed and the Court does not
consider that it is appropriate to recommend any other number.
The Court considers that the position of Ms. Jewell/Ms. McNeill
should be given sympathetic consideration by the Company.

Division: CHAIRMAN Mr Collins Mr Devine

Text of Document__________________________________________________________________

CD90403 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13325

INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 67, INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1946


PARTIES: PENNEYS LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATION OF IRISH EMPLOYERS)

and

IRISH DISTRIBUTIVE AND ADMINISTRATION TRADE UNION


SUBJECT:
1. Claim by the Union concerning the ratio of full-time to
part-time workers/creation of full-time posts.

BACKGROUND:
2. In May, 1990, the Union sought discussions regarding the
ratio of full-time to part-time staff employed at the Company's
Artane branch. The Dublin and Dun Laoghaire Drapery Trade
Registered Agreement provides for a ratio of four full-time
employees to one part-timer employee. The Union maintained that
the Company was in fact employing thirty-eight part-time workers
some of whom work over forty hours per week. The Union claimed
that only thirteen full-time staff were employed and that twelve
part-time staff should be appointed to full-time positions in
part-compliance with the Registered Agreement. The Company
rejected the claim on the grounds that a special project, which
required extra staff, had been operating in the store (details
supplied to the Court) and that this was being phased out. As a
result staffing levels would be returning to a more normal level.
No agreement could be reached locally and the matter was referred
to the conciliation service of the Labour Court on 1st June, 1990.
No agreement was reached at a conciliation conference held on 11th
July, 1990, and the matter was referred to the Labour Court on
16th July, 1990, for investigation and recommendation. A Court
hearing on 19th September, 1990, was adjourned to allow further
negotiations between the parties. A reconvened hearing took place
on 4th June, 1991. Prior to the reconvened hearing, the Union and
the Federation of Irish Employers reached a new agreement on the
ratio of full to part-time staff. The new ratio which came into
effect on 28th January, 1991, allowed for one part-time worker for
every two full-time workers plus the elimination of all
restrictions on part-time numbers during Saturdays and late
nights.


UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. Some of the part-time workers have been employed on a
forty plus hour week since October, 1989. The total weekly
hours worked by part-time staff is approximately eight hundred
hours, which equates to twenty-one full-time jobs. The Union
on 11th May, 1990, proposed discussion with the Company with a
view to agreeing a new ratio, however, the Company declined
this offer.

2. The Company continues to employ part-time staff on
full-time hours. These staff do not enjoy the benefits of
full-time working such as the sick pay and pension schemes.
This represents a considerable saving to the Company. The
Company refuse to change the status of these workers. In one
instance, Ms. McNeill, a worker who has been working full-time
hours for four years remains classified as part-time. This
abuse could easily be eliminated as an existing full-time
worker, Ms. Jewell, wishes to reduce her work to part-time.
The Company has refused a straight swap between the two which
would resolve the problem at no cost to the Company.

3. Between the 28th January, 1991, when the new agreement
came into force and 28th March, 1991, the Company broke the
agreement on twenty-five out of forty-four days studied during
that period. This is not the record of an honourable Company.
To use so-called part-time staff on a full-time basis as a
means of depriving workers of their entitlements is an abuse.
To make agreements and immediately break them is an abuse.
The Union requests the Court to recommend that the Company
create six full-time posts to bring the Company into line with
the new ratios agreed in January, 1991.

COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. Over the last two years the Company's Artane branch has
undergone a period of considerable change from a trading
perspective (details supplied to the Court). Between
September, 1989 and January, 1990, the branch size was reduced
by one-third. Between January and April, 1990, the branch was
completely refitted. The store is now settling into a normal
trading position. However, a balance of the reduced stock is
still held in Artane and is being transferred on a phased
basis. Until this is completed there is a requirement for
additional hours to be worked by the part-time staff.

2. In July, 1989, following a request from staff, the Company
agreed to change full-time workers to a regular five day week,
Monday to Friday, instead of the normal five over six day,
Monday to Saturday, roster. This invariably requires
additional part-time staff or the sharing of these hours among
existing part-timers as Saturday is the busiest trading day.
Seventy percent of the branch's trade is concentrated into the
Thursday to Saturday period. This has obvious implications
for staffing levels and the requirement of part-time staff to
cover this period.


3. Staffing levels are totally dictated by the level of
business and as a result must be flexible. This flexibility
to adjust staffing levels/hours worked by part-timers has been
essential in the last two years. The Company could not accept
a situation of fixed staffing levels. Over the last year the
Company has, in addition to normal holiday cover, also had to
provide cover for three staff on leave of absence, four staff
taking maternity leave and three staff on extended periods of
absence due to sickness.

4. Given the intense level of competition in the trade and
the need to monitor staff costs, the Company is not in a
position to create additional full-time posts.

RECOMMENDATION:
5. Having considered the submissions of the parties, the Court
recommends that the Company adhere strictly to the terms of the
registered agreement. This adherence will determine the number of
permanent full-time staff to be employed and the Court does not
consider that it is appropriate to recommend any other number.
The Court considers that the position of Ms. Jewell/Ms. McNeill
should be given sympathetic consideration by the Company.
~

Signed on behalf of the Labour Court


Kevin Heffernan
___________________
20th June, 1991. Chairman
B.O'N./J.C.