Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD92658 Case Number: LCR13908 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: QUINNSWORTH - and - IRISH DISTRIBUTIVE AND ALLIED TRADES UNION |
Dispute concerning a claim for service pay for part-time workers in the Company's Branch in Tullamore.
Recommendation:
5. Having considered the submissions made by the parties, the
Court does not consider that the Union's interpretation of the
Tullamore Distributive Trade Agreement is correct. For this
reason and also because the claim is contrary to the terms of
P.E.S.P. the Court does not recommend concession of the Union's
claim.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr McHenry Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD92658 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13908
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES: QUINNSWORTH
and
IRISH DISTRIBUTIVE AND ALLIED TRADES UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning a claim for service pay for part-time
workers in the Company's Branch in Tullamore.
BACKGROUND:
2. 1. There are 55 workers employed at Quinnsworth in Tullamore,
including 9 pro-rata part-time and 11 casual part-time
workers. The Company pays its full-time workers service-pay
of 75p per week after 5 years, #1.50 after 10 years, #2.00
after 15 years, up to a maximum of #3.50 after 30 years'
service. The Union is seeking the application of the
service-pay agreement to 8 eligible part-time workers who work
between 22 and 32 hours per week.
2. The claim was referred to the Labour Relations Commission
and a conciliation conference was held on 24th September,
1992. The Company's position is that the payment of service
pay to these categories of worker is not traditional in the
retail industry and that the claim is cost increasing and
outside the terms of the Programme for Economic and Social
Progress (P.E.S.P.). The Union's position is that it is
seeking the application of an existing agreement to a category
of worker that is being discriminated against.
3. A negotiated settlement was not possible and the claim was
referred to the Labour Court in accordance with Section 26(1)
of the Industrial Relations Act, 1946 for investigation and
recommendation on 27th October, 1992. A Labour Court
investigation took place in Tullamore on 10th December, 1992
(date suitable to both parties).
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Union is seeking the application of the service-pay
agreement to 8 part-time workers. Service-pay is part of the
Tullamore Distributive Trade Agreement. Part-time workers
form an increasingly important part of the Company's workforce
and make a very valuable contribution to the Branch's
business. The non-recognition of their service for
service-pay purposes is counter to the Agreement and the
spirit of the 1991 Protection of Part-time Workers Act. The
denial of service-pay for part-time workers excludes them from
a logical and legitimate element of pay.
2. Part-time workers have the same conditions of employment
as full-time workers with few exceptions (details supplied).
The status of part-time workers has been recognised by the
Labour Court and the extension of the terms of the Agreement
is more than reasonable. Service-pay exists in the Company
and in the circumstances, the extension of it to part-time
workers could not be considered as a breach of the terms of
the P.E.S.P.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The claim is in breach of the cost stabilisation clauses
of the P.E.S.P. In addition the Company's Branch is part of
the Tullamore Distributive Trade Group and the town trade
agreement which applies does not provide for the payment of
service-pay to any category of part-time staff. This is
consistent with Distributive Trade Agreements throughout the
country and in the Company's 70 branches.
2. The Company is involved in a competitive business. It
employs 6,000 unionised workers and all resources are
committed to the protection of market share and employment.
It is the Company's view that the Union should not have
pursued this claim against one employer in a town trade
grouping.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. Having considered the submissions made by the parties, the
Court does not consider that the Union's interpretation of the
Tullamore Distributive Trade Agreement is correct. For this
reason and also because the claim is contrary to the terms of
P.E.S.P. the Court does not recommend concession of the Union's
claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
__________________
22nd December, 1992. Deputy Chairman.
J.F./J.C.
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Jerome Forde, Court Secretary.