FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : POWER SUPERMARKETS LIMITED - AND - MANDATE DIVISION : Chairman: Employer Member: Worker Member: |
1. Retention of sick pay benefits for part-time staff.
BACKGROUND:
2. Power Supermarkets Limited employs 63 staff at its Quinnsworth branch in Celbridge, Co. Kildare. There are three categories of staff employed at the store;
(1) Full-time sales assistants
(2) Pro-rata sales assistants
(3) Casual part-time staff
There are approximately 26 casual/part-time staff who are generally school/college going, and work an average of 25 hours per week. This group of workers tend to be transient in nature and this is reflected in their short term service records. The dispute involves this group of workers. The Union claims that the Company has withdrawn sick pay benefits from the casual/part-time staff without consultation with the Union.
The Company state that there is no Company/Union Agreement for casual/part-time staff in relation to sick pay in any of the Company's 76 stores nationwide. In October, 1995 it came to management's attention that casual part-time staff in Celbridge were in receipt of sick pay benefits. This was due to an administrative error. The Company decided that:-
(1) all existing casual part-time staff, in employment at that time, would continue to
enjoy sick pay benefits on a "red circle" basis, and
(2) that all future casual part-time staff would be employed on the terms and
conditions agreed for the Branch - excluding sick pay benefit.
The Union claims that it is opposed to the loss of any conditions of employment in respect of current or prospective employees. It claims that the sick pay scheme had been availed of by part-time/casual employees for more than ten years and that it was 'de facto' part of their terms and conditions of employment.
As no agreement was possible between the parties the dispute was referred to the Conciliation Service of the Labour Relations Commission. A conciliation conference was convened on the 13th March, 1996 but no agreement was reached. The dispute was referred to the Labour Court on 22nd April, 1996 under Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. The Court investigated the dispute on the 18th June, 1996 (the earliest date suitable to both parties).
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Company is in breach of the 1987 "Recognition and Procedural Agreement" which has a clause dealing with changes in the terms and conditions of employment.
2. In 1983, the Labour Court recommended (LCR7953 refers) a sick pay scheme for part-time workers. The Company is now setting aside this recommendation.
3. The Programme for Competitiveness and Work (PCW) provides for the introduction of pensions and sick pay schemes where none presently exists. The Company is therefore acting contrary to the spirit of the PCW.
4. The Company is engaging in industrial action by removing part of the working conditions of our members and are in breach of the PCW.
5. The Company should restore the sick pay benefit for all casual employees and compensate those who have suffered a loss. It should also honour the Company/Union Agreement and the terms of the PCW.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The sick pay scheme for casual/seasonal part-time staff is not in operation in any other branch of the Company. It was an oversight on the part of management which allowed these employees to benefit from the scheme.
2. The Company rejects the Union's claim that Labour Court Recommendation (LCR7953 refers) applied to casual staff. The recommendation applied to "pro-rata" staff only and not to casual part-time staff.
3. In 1988, the Company concluded an agreement with IDATU formalising the terms/ conditions of employment for casual/part-time staff. The agreement did not provide for a sick pay scheme.
4. It was an administrative error which allowed sick pay benefits to apply to casual part-time staff in the store. The Company must have the right to correct such errors when identified.
5. Other traders in the distributive trades do not provide a sick pay scheme for casual part-time staff. Similarly, the Joint Labour Committee (JLC) for the Grocery Trade does not provide for a sick pay scheme for part-time staff.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court finds that the manner in which the Company arbitrarily ceased payment to the staff here concerned is not conducive to the development and maintenance of a good industrial relations climate.
The Court has fully considered all of the views expressed by the parties in their oral and written submissions and recommends that the Company proposals be accepted i.e. that all existing casual part-time staff in employment at the time be "red circled" and that all new staff joining the Company do so on the basis of the formal terms and conditions applicable to casual part-time staff in the Branch.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Tom McGrath
23rd July, 1996______________________
L.W./D.T.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Larry Wisely, Court Secretary.