Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD94151 Case Number: LCR14546 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: L & N SUPERMARKET - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Claim for an increase of 3% under Clause 3 of the Programme for Economic and Social Progress (P.E.S.P.).
Recommendation:
The Court has considered the submissions from the parties and the
negotiations which took place at local and Labour Relations
Commission Level. The Court is of the view that the claim is
legitimate under Clause 3 and in particular notes that the Union
have indicated that they are prepared to consider any proposals
the Company might make in relation to trade off, phasing, etc.
The Court is satisfied that resolution of the claim lies in these
areas and accordingly refers the issue back for further local
negotiations.
If final agreement is not reached by 30th September, 1994, the
parties may refer back directly to the Court for recommendation.
Division: Ms Owens Mr McHenry Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD94151 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14546
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES:
L & N SUPERMARKET
(REPRESENTED BY THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS CONFEDERATION)
AND
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim for an increase of 3% under Clause 3 of the Programme
for Economic and Social Progress (P.E.S.P.).
BACKGROUND:
2. L & N is a wholly owned Irish multiple supermarket chain with
19 outlets in various towns throughout the country. It
employs approximately 600 workers.
The dispute before the Court concerns the Union's claim for
a pay increase of 3% under the terms of Clause 3 of the
P.E.S.P. on behalf of approximately 30 workers employed in
the Company's store in Tipperary town. Local level
discussions failed to resolve the issue and the dispute was
referred to the Labour Relations Commission. A conciliation
conference took place on 13th January, 1994. At conciliation
the Company indicated that it was prepared to pay 1% from the
end of Phase 3 of P.E.S.P. (February, 1995), in return for
agreement to give the Company the option to extend late night
opening. The Union rejected the offer.
The dispute was referred by the Labour Relations Commission
to the Labour Court on 8th March, 1994, in accordance with
Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A
Labour Court hearing took place in Waterford on 12th July,
1994.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Company has conceded the 3% to workers in stores in
other towns.
2. The workers concerned have co-operated fully with
management in a job reduction programme which resulted
in the loss of seven jobs and would consider any Company
proposal which would enable it absorb some or all of the
costs involved in the claim.
3. The Company's concern regarding a decline in the
business following the opening in the town of a
Supervalu store is not justified. During the past 12
months business has exceeded previous levels. This
increase in business has placed additional
responsibilities and demands on the workers concerned.
4. Currently the L & N store is enjoying great popularity
in the shopping environs of Tipperary town. The store
provides comfortable shopping for its customers in a
relaxed atmosphere. The workers have made a significant
contribution to the success of the store with their
on-going co-operation and flexibility. They have
fulfilled their obligations under Clause 3 and in the
circumstances the payment of the 3% is justified.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The rates of pay and conditions of employment differ
from town to town depending on local circumstances and
general trading positions.
2. Tipperary is a rural market town with a population of
4,693 and has 3 supermarkets, L & N, Donoghues and
Supervalu, all competing for the same market. L & N is
the only one unionised and its rates and conditions are
substantially higher than those of the opposition and
the minimum laid down by the JLC.
3. L & N, Tipperary, has rates which are higher than its
employees in Tramore, Carlow, Dungarvan and Kilkenny,
which towns have larger populations than Tipperary. In
Tipperary there is a 7-point scale going from #118.46 to
#189.94. The 3% cap has not been paid in these centres
because of trading circumstances.
4. Since the opening of Supervalu some 4 years ago, trade
has been under severe pressure and L & N is still
trading at a lower level than 5 years ago even though
pay rates increases have ranged from over 14.5% on Point
1 to 11% on Point 7 during the three years of P.E.S.P.
5. In the retail sector, wages are the single largest
factor accounting for over 50% of total costs. Margins
are continually under pressure due to intense
competition from other multiples. Increases over and
above the norm will have the effect of further
undermining the stores competitiveness.
6. L & N, Tipperary, was forced to make 7 workers redundant
after the opening of Supervalu. The policy of the
company is to maintain employment. It believes that
concession of this claim would seriously jeopardise the
employment levels in the store.
7. Claims for the 3% cap have been lodged by MANDATE in
other L & N stores. Some have gone to conciliation and
are on hold until the present claim has gone through
procedures. There would be serious knock-on effects in
those stores should this claim be conceded.
8. The Company offer of 1% still stands in return for the
option to trade until 6.30 p.m. This offer is made as a
gesture of goodwill even though the Company cannot
afford it.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has considered the submissions from the parties and the
negotiations which took place at local and Labour Relations
Commission Level. The Court is of the view that the claim is
legitimate under Clause 3 and in particular notes that the Union
have indicated that they are prepared to consider any proposals
the Company might make in relation to trade off, phasing, etc.
The Court is satisfied that resolution of the claim lies in these
areas and accordingly refers the issue back for further local
negotiations.
If final agreement is not reached by 30th September, 1994, the
parties may refer back directly to the Court for recommendation.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
14th August, 1994 Evelyn Owens
F.B./M.M. __________________
Deputy Chairperson
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Fran Brennan, Court Secretary.