FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : POWERS SUPERMARKETS/QUINNSWORTH MAYNOOTH - AND - MANDATE DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr McHenry Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Higher rate of pay.
BACKGROUND:
2. The dispute concerns a claim by the Union, on behalf of two butchers employed at the Company's Maynooth store, for a higher rate of pay similar to the rates of pay which currently apply to butchers employed by the Company's Dublin stores.
The Union claims that an integral condition for the application of the higher rate in Dublin also applies to the store in Maynooth namely agreement to move to other stores to cover temporary absences. The workers concerned have provided such cover in Dublin stores when requested.
The Company rejects the claim. It states that its rates of pay are negotiated on a store by store basis. Concession of the claim would have serious knock-on effects for the Company.
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 held on the 26th of January, 1998 but no agreement was reached. The dispute was referred to the Labour Court under Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. The Court investigated the dispute on the 12th June, 1998.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The workers concerned have, when requested, agreed to help out at other stores during illness or at holiday time. The Company should reward these workers for their flexibility.
2. The Union contends that only those employees who provide the necessary level of flexibility should benefit from the higher rate of pay.
3. The claim is a reasonable one and should be conceded by the Company.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. Concession of the claim would have widespread knock-on effects throughout the Company.
2. The different rates of pay for butchers within the organisation were negotiated and agreed to with the various unions.
3. When staff are asked to help out at other stores it is done on a voluntary basis and the staff concerned are paid the appropriate expenses.
4. The claim is cost increasing and is precluded under the terms of Partnership 2000 and the Programme for Competitiveness and Work (P.C.W.).
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has given careful consideration to the submissions of the parties. It notes that the workers associated with this claim have no liability to transfer between stores unlike their counterparts in Dublin. On that basis the Court does not see merit in the Union's claim.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
18th June, 1998______________________
L.W./S.G.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Larry Wisely, Court Secretary.