Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD94389 Case Number: LCR14586 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: PENNEYS - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Dispute concerning the conditions for late opening.
Recommendation:
On the basis of the submissions made, the Court has come to the
conclusion that there is an element of validity in the claim made
on behalf of the workers here concerned.
However, the Court is conscious of the developments within the
retail business and the changing patterns of hours of trading
which have emerged over the past years. It is also conscious of
the fact that the REA which is applicable within the trade has not
been varied by the parties to take account of these changes. The
Court has already, in order no. REA 2393 expressed its views in
this regard.
While the dispute in this instance involves one particular store
it appears to the Court that the issue in this dispute is one that
involves a wider sphere and more correctly should be for
consideration within discussions on a variation of the REA.
The Court therefore recommends that the parties commence immediate
negotiations with the objective of varying the REA to bring it in
line with current trends with the trade.
The Court further recommends that the above variation exercise be
concluded by 30th June, 1995. In the event of the matter not
being concluded by that date, the Court would be prepared to issue
a definitive recommendation on the specific issue.
Division: Ms Owens Mr McHenry Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD94389 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14586
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES:
PENNEYS
(REPRESENTED BY THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS CONFEDERATION)
AND
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning the conditions for late opening.
BACKGROUND:
2. 1. The Company's store in Artane commenced late night
opening on Wednesdays from 2nd March, 1994, This
followed a decision by Artane Shopping Centre in which
it is located, to open late on Wednesdays. The Union,
in lieu of agreeing to the new hours, sought double time
payments and concessions under Clause 3 of the PESP for
the late opening hours as well as an increase in the
meal allowance. The Company rejected the Union's claims
and staffed the store with managers.
2. The workers refused to co-operate with the new hours and
industrial action was taken in the form of picketing the
store on a Wednesday night. The dispute was referred to
the Labour Relations Commission and conciliation
conferences were held on 25th March and 21st July, 1994.
No agreement could be reached at conciliation and the
dispute was referred to the Labour Court on 25th July,
1994, under Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations
Act, 1990. The Union agreed to defer further industrial
action pending the outcome of the Labour Court
investigation. The Court investigated the dispute on
30th September, 1994.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Company has ignored the Union and sought to impose,
without consultation, the new late night trading. The
Union has made proposals through which agreement could
be secured.
2. Part-time workers should be paid overtime rates for late
trading hours where they have had already completed a
full day's work. The Company has introduced this
arrangement in its Mary Street and O'Connell Street
branches following trade level negotiations with the
I.B.E.C. In other stores, the Company has sought to
impose its will on the workers. Trading hours are and
always were the subject of negotiations with the Union.
Part-time workers should be paid in the same manner as
full-time workers for late nights trading.
3. The Workers who work two late-nights receive a tea
allowance of #1.25 for the second night. The tea
allowance has remained unchanged for 13 years. The
Company should improve the tea allowance to a more
realistic level or enter into negotiations to replace
the allowance with something more beneficial to all
concerned.
4. The Company has completed negotiations on Clause 3 of
the PESP in only one Dublin store. The Union has
proposed discussions under the terms of Clause 3
concerning the additional trading hours. Despite the
fact that the Union has set an agenda, the Company has
made no response. It is difficult to process any issue
in the face of such an unreasonable approach.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. It is the Company's prerogative to decide on hours of
trading. It is a well established practice that stores
operating within a shopping centre will trade during the
opening hours of the complex. It is the overwhelming
practice of the Company to pay part-time staff overtime
rates for time worked in excess of the normal weekly
working hours of full-time workers. The only exception
is the Dublin City Centre trading area on Thursday
nights. Concession of this aspect of the Union's claim
would have serious repercussions.
2. The trend within the retail sector is to employ workers
on a flexible basis without resorting to expensive
overtime payments. The Union's claim ignores current
agreements which could be jeopardised by a
recommendation in their favour. The Court has already
addressed the issue of overtime payments for part-time
workers (details supplied) and the Union sought an
interpretation of the Registered Employment Agreement in
respect of this matter. The Court's order stated that
it did not find "that a compelling case had been
established that the Company is in breach of the REA".
3. The Union's claim is cost increasing and is therefore
precluded under the terms of the PESP and the PCW. The
issue of a meal allowance is inappropriate as the
Company provides an evening meal. The Company is
prepared to enter into negotiations in respect of the
terms of Clause 3 of the PESP but it is not prepared to
include the question of late night trading as a
negotiable item.
RECOMMENDATION:
On the basis of the submissions made, the Court has come to the
conclusion that there is an element of validity in the claim made
on behalf of the workers here concerned.
However, the Court is conscious of the developments within the
retail business and the changing patterns of hours of trading
which have emerged over the past years. It is also conscious of
the fact that the REA which is applicable within the trade has not
been varied by the parties to take account of these changes. The
Court has already, in order no. REA 2393 expressed its views in
this regard.
While the dispute in this instance involves one particular store
it appears to the Court that the issue in this dispute is one that
involves a wider sphere and more correctly should be for
consideration within discussions on a variation of the REA.
The Court therefore recommends that the parties commence immediate
negotiations with the objective of varying the REA to bring it in
line with current trends with the trade.
The Court further recommends that the above variation exercise be
concluded by 30th June, 1995. In the event of the matter not
being concluded by that date, the Court would be prepared to issue
a definitive recommendation on the specific issue.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
28th October, 1994 Evelyn Owens
J.F./D.T. ____________
Chairman
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Jerome Forde, Court Secretary.