Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD95174 Case Number: LCR14736 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: MARKS AND SPENCER (THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS CONFEDERATION) - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Dispute concerning a) early morning supplements and b) car parking.
Recommendation:
Having considered the submissions from the parties the Court is
satisfied that the Company's offer is, in general, reasonable.
The Court accordingly recommends that, subject to the offer of one
year's compensation for loss of car parking being increased to 2
years' compensation, the Company's offer be accepted.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Pierce Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD95174 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14736
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES:
MARKS AND SPENCER
(REPRESENTED BY THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS CONFEDERATION)
AND
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning a) early morning supplements and b) car
parking.
BACKGROUND:
2. 1. The Company employs 536 workers in three stores in
Ireland. As a result of operational changes in its Mary
Street Store (details supplied), the Union was informed
in October, 1994 of the following changes:-
(i) The starting time of eleven warehouse workers and
twelve cleaners would change from 05.45 a.m. to
07.00 a.m.
(ii) Car parking spaces would no longer be provided
for the workers.
(iii) The warehouse workers would take responsibility
for security of the backgate.
2. The Company pays an early morning supplement to workers
who start before 08.00 a.m. The amount of the
supplement varies depending upon how early the workers
are requested to start work. The changes resulted in a
loss for the workers of part of their early morning
supplement, car parking and overtime. The Union
submitted a claim to have the early morning supplement
'redcircled' for serving staff as well as compensation
for loss of car parking and overtime.
3. The Company refused to consider the claim for
redcircling the workers' pay and the dispute was
referred to the Labour Relations Commission. A
conciliation conference was held on 23rd January, 1995.
The Union would not consider a once-off payment for the
change in starting times and the Company would not
consider an ongoing payment apart from the rate
appropriate to the new starting times.
4. The Company offered #1,200 for the loss of car parking
but this was unacceptable to the Union. Agreement was
reached on the claim for compensation for loss of
overtime. A negotiated settlement was not possible on
the other two claims and they were referred to the
Labour Court of 27th February, 1995, under the terms of
Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990.
The Court investigated the dispute of 7th April, 1995.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The early morning supplement is an integral part of
basic earnings for the workers. It is taken into
consideration in the payment of overtime, sick and
holiday pay, pension and the Christmas bonus. The
Company's proposal amounts to a sizeable weekly pay cut
and an equivalent cut in benefits.
2. The Company has quoted another agreement with another
Union as a precedent in this case. The agreement with
the other Union was unnecessary and premature (details
supplied) and cannot be regarded as a genuine precedent
on this issue. The workers have long service with the
Company (unlike the other Union's workers) and they are
accustomed to the supplement as an integral part of
their basic pay.
3. The Company's principled stand on redcircling is at odds
with its actions in other cases (details supplied). The
Company will save #26,000 by the reduction in the early
morning supplement. It will save #20,000 in reduced
security expenditure. The Union is prepared to
negotiate on its position but the Company insists on
taking all the cost savings involved. The Union's final
position on the car parking issue is for compensation of
twice the annual cost of alternative parking.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company is not reducing the workers' income. It is
applying the terms of an agreement concerning
compensation for an early start. The allowance varies
with the start time. A precedent setting agreement, in
similar circumstances, has been reached with the
majority Union in the Company.
2. The Company is opposed to the redcircling of the early
morning supplement since the payment would compensate
workers for unsocial hours which they would no longer be
working. The Company recognises that a level of
compensation is appropriate for the proportion of the
supplement which has been lost. This compensation
should be in line with precedent.
3. The Union's position would lead to two different pay
scales in the future. This is unacceptable as workers
would be in receipt of benefits which are inappropriate.
The Company is prepared to compensate workers who have
lost car parking but only those workers who have
regularly used it.
RECOMMENDATION:
Having considered the submissions from the parties the Court is
satisfied that the Company's offer is, in general, reasonable.
The Court accordingly recommends that, subject to the offer of one
year's compensation for loss of car parking being increased to 2
years' compensation, the Company's offer be accepted.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
21st April, 1995 Evelyn Owens
J.F./D.T. ____________
Chairman
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Jerome Forde, Court Secretary.