Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD93170 Case Number: LCR14134 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: QUINNSWORTH - and - IRISH DISTRIBUTIVE AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRADE UNION |
Restoration of service pay.
Recommendation:
5. The Court, having regard to the written agreement between the
parties, has no alternative but to reject the claim as made.
The Court however recommends that the subject of service pay
should be considered within future negotiations under the
P.E.S.P., or later, if not resolved within that context.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Brennan Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD93170 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14134
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES: QUINNSWORTH
and
IRISH DISTRIBUTIVE AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRADE UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Restoration of service pay.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company employs approximately 32 people at its store in
Midleton. The store was opened in 1982. Agreement was reached at
that time between the parties on the pay and conditions of the
workers concerned. In 1988, the workers concerned were paid
service pay for approximately 11 months until the Company
discontinued the payment in late 1988. In March, 1992 the Union
proposed the re-introduction of the service pay. The Company
rejected the proposal.
The matter was referred to the Labour Relations Commission. A
conciliation conference was held on 3rd March, 1993 but no
agreement was reached and the matter was referred to the Labour
Court. The Court hearing took place in Cork on 24th June, 1993.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The 1982 agreement established a relationship between
Midleton and other towns in the immediate vicinity. Service
pay is a feature in all agreements for workers in similar
employment in these towns.
2. Until recently, the workers concerned worked a 40-hour
week which is similar to that of workers in other areas.
3. The workers concerned were paid service pay in 1988.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. Due to administrative error, service pay was applied to
some members of the staff from February, 1988 to November,
1988, when the mistake was identified and corrected.
2. There is no provision for service pay in the Company/Union
agreement.
3. The Union's claim is contrary to the terms of the
Programme for National Recovery (P.N.R.) and the P.E.S.P.
4. The Company has complied with the terms of the P.N.R. and
P.E.S.P. These commitments are costly and were entered into
on the basis that no further cost-increasing claims will have
to be borne by the Company.
5. The retail grocery trade is highly competitive with many
of the Company's competitors paying below Union rates. There
is no growth to offset increased labour costs.
6. Company proposals under Clause 3 of the P.E.S.P. which
provide for a 3% increase from the date of agreement were
rejected by the Union.
7. The Company is prepared to enter into discussions on
clause 3 which would include service pay. Alternatively the
Union's claim should be deferred for future consideration.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court, having regard to the written agreement between the
parties, has no alternative but to reject the claim as made.
The Court however recommends that the subject of service pay
should be considered within future negotiations under the
P.E.S.P., or later, if not resolved within that context.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Evelyn Owens
_____________________
14th July, 1993. Deputy Chairman.
F.B./J.C.
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Fran Brennan, Court Secretary.