FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : ROCHES STORES (REPRESENTED BY THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Owens Employer Member: Mr Pierce Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Retrospection on foot of a pay anomaly.
BACKGROUND:
2. The dispute arises due to a pay anomaly between the rate of pay of 14 catering staff in the staff canteen (£4.35 per hour) and the rate of their counterparts in the public coffee shop (£4.45 per hour). The 2 groups in question are members of different branches of the Union. The Union states that while this anomaly existed since the start up of the staff canteen in the late 1970s, it only came to light during 1996. In addition, the Union claims that the canteen staff, while on a lower rate, have additional duties, e.g., the cooking of hot food, which is not a feature of coffee shop duties. Essentially, the Union position is that the higher rate, i.e., the full JLC rate should apply to all.
The Company accepts that there is an anomaly and is willing to address the harmonisation of rates in the context of the elimination of any operational anomalies that exist between the two areas. It is also the Company's wish that all the workers concerned should be members of the same branch of the Union. The Union was prepared to address the issue of harmonisation and sought retrospection of its claim, initially to 1979, and subsequently to 1990, the time when the provision of hot food commenced in the canteen. The dispute was the subject of 2 conciliation conferences, under the auspices of the Labour Relations Commission, at which agreement was not reached. The dispute was referred to the Labour Court, on the 27th of May, 1997, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. The Court carried out its investigation on the 29th of September, 1997.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. It is unacceptable that workers who carry out the preparation and serving of food are paid less that colleagues in another part of the Company whose duties are less detailed.
2. The anomaly of 10p per hour between the 2 groups of workers involved was acknowledged, in principle, by the Company and any retrospection must be paid.
3. The workers concerned should not be forced by the Company to transfer Union branches to qualify for a payment to which they are entitled.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. There are no grounds for a claim for retrospection to 1990. The staff concerned were fully involved in the menu change in 1990 (details supplied to the Court).
2. Any form of retrospective payment would set a detrimental precedent within the store and for other stores within the group.
3. The claim is cost-increasing and is debarred under the PCW and Partnership 2000.
4. The Company is willing to consider the harmonisation of rates provided the anomalies are addressed and the staff in question join the same Union branch as their colleagues.
RECOMMENDATION:
Having considered the submissions made by both parties, the Court recommends as follows:-
1. The parties to meet immediately to agree flexibility/harmonisation between the two groups;
2. On reaching agreement under 1., the Company to agree to pay the rate claimed by the Union, with effect from the 1st of September, 1996.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Evelyn Owens
23rd of October, 1997______________________
M.K./S.G.Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Michael Keegan, Court Secretary.