Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD9150 Case Number: LCR13287 Section / Act: S67 Parties: QUINNSWORTH - and - IRISH DISTRIBUTIVE AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRADE UNION |
Dispute concerning the implementation of a 39 hour week at the Company's Midleton Branch.
Recommendation:
8. The Court was presented with directly contradictory evidence
as to whether an agreement in relation to the implementation of a
39 hour week was made or not. What is actually in place agrees
with the Union's submission.
Taking all evidence into account the Court recommends that the
Company agree to continue this arrangement pro temp and that the
parties meet immediately to examine any problems which may have
arisen. The Court notes the Union's agreement to review the
situation in the light of difficulties which may emerge.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Keogh Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD9150 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13287
THE LABOUR COURT
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 67, INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1946
PARTIES: QUINNSWORTH
AND
IRISH DISTRIBUTIVE AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRADE UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning the implementation of a 39 hour week at
the Company's Midleton Branch.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company operates 70 supermarkets, 52 of which operated a
40 hour week prior to the Programme for National Recovery (P.N.R.)
Agreement. Agreement on the one hour reduction for the Dublin
supermarkets was concluded in September, 1989 following
discussions of the Joint Industrial Council (J.I.C.) for Grocery
and Allied Trades. The agreement provided that the one hour
reduction would be implemented on a rota basis, i.e. late starts
on Mondays, Tuesdays and Wednesdays of alternate weeks and early
finishing on the Tuesdays of the fourth week. The agreement
covers approximately 3,000 people (details supplied to the Court).
3. The Company used this agreement as a model for its branches
throughout the country. In implementing the agreement at local
level the Company sought a minimum disruption of trading hours and
allowed for flexibility to suit local arrangements. Similar local
agreements to that of Dublin were reached in all the Company's
branches with the exception of Midleton.
4. The Midleton branch employs 36 staff (18 of whom are
full-time). The Company by letter dated 11th January, 1990
outlined its proposals for the 29th Wage Round (2nd phase of the
P.N.R.). Under the paragraph dealing with working hours the
Company proposed as follows:
"The basic working week for full-time staff to be reduced from
40 to 39 hours per week with effect from 1st November, 1989.
The method of implementation to be agreed at local level.
Trading hours will not be affected.
Basic full-time weekly pay remains unchanged. The hourly
rate for overtime calculation and for hourly paid staff will
be adjusted accordingly."
The proposals were accepted by the Union following which the Union
contends, agreement was reached locally to implement the 39 hour
week by means of increased annual leave entitlement.
5. The Company denies that any such agreement was reached and
sought to introduce similar arrangements as exist in its other
branches. (There had been a change of Manager around February,
1990. The Union maintain that agreement was reached with the
former Manager verbally. The Company state that they have
contacted the former Manager who denies any such agreement was
reached). The issue was referred to the conciliation service of
the Labour Court on 26th November, 1990. A conciliation
conference was held on 13th December, 1990. As no agreement was
reached the parties consented to a referral to the Labour Court
for investigation and recommendation. A Court hearing was held in
Cork on 17th April, 1991.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
6. 1. The method of implementation of the 39 hour week was
agreed in accordance with the agreement as is the case in
other locations. It has been in operation for over 12
months. Management have not raised any specific problem with
it other than to say that it does not operate in any other
branch. The same rate of pay does not apply in every Branch
either.
2. It is the Company that insisted on local negotiation.
The present arrangement has worked extremely well for both
sides and the Court is asked to recommend its retention.
Should any specific problems arise in the future the Union is
prepared to meet with the Company and discuss them.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
7. 1. Management did not agree to accrued time being taken as
additional annual leave. The arrangements agreed in other
centres are consistent with arrangements in the retail trade
generally. The branch in Midleton, in common with the
Company's other branches, have 20 days annual leave plus Good
Friday. Other time off arises from absenteeism and statutory
maternity leave. To concede the Union's claim would add
another week's leave to this situation and represents an
unmanageable burden in a retail unit which is open six days a
week.
2. The types of arrangements agreed in other branches allow
the hour to be taken at a time which is least disruptive to
customer service. This ensures that there are no undue long
delays for customers and that there are enough staff to give
maximum support to each other during busy periods.
3. The arrangements in place in the other branches take
cognizance of Clause 7 of the P.N.R. which states that in
implementating the 39 hour week regard must be had as to
costs, competitiveness, flexibility, etc. Accordingly the
Court is asked to recommend that the Company's proposals
regarding the 39 hour week be accepted by the workers
concerned.
RECOMMENDATION:
8. The Court was presented with directly contradictory evidence
as to whether an agreement in relation to the implementation of a
39 hour week was made or not. What is actually in place agrees
with the Union's submission.
Taking all evidence into account the Court recommends that the
Company agree to continue this arrangement pro temp and that the
parties meet immediately to examine any problems which may have
arisen. The Court notes the Union's agreement to review the
situation in the light of difficulties which may emerge.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
17th May, 1991 Evelyn Owens
M.D. / M.O'C. _______________
Deputy Chairman