FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : TESCO (MALLOW) - AND - MANDATE DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Flood Employer Member: Mr Keogh Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Claim by the Union that the servicing of the car parking system should be removed completely from the checkouts or that compensation be paid.
BACKGROUND:
2. The dispute concerns approximately 22 workers represented by the Union who are employed by Tesco in Mallow, Co. Cork. In December, 1998, the Company introduced a new ticketed car parking system in its store in Mallow to prevent all day parking. With the new system customers get a parking ticket on the way in, from a ticket machine. This ticket is stamped at the checkout to show that they have purchased goods over a certain value. Then on the way out, customers have to enter the stamped ticket into a ticket machine to get free parking. The Union claims that the system is causing difficulties to customers and that they come back to the checkouts for assistance. They are also claiming that the system was introduced without prior consultation; that servicing the car parking system is not part of a sales assistant's job; that management support was not forthcoming when difficulties arose and that the new system is not covered under the new technology agreement between MANDATE and Tesco. The Union wants the servicing of the car parking system removed completely from the checkouts or appropriate compensation paid.
Management rejected the claim The dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commission and a conciliation conference was held on the 14th of April, 1999. Agreement was not reached. The dispute was referred to the Labour Court by the Labour Relations Commission on the 26th of April, 1999. A Court hearing was held in Cork on the 30th of June, 1999.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The operation of the car parking system is not covered under the duties and responsibilities of a sales assistant in Tesco (Mallow). Details of their duties as defined under the Grocery JLC are supplied to the Court.
2. The Company did not notify staff that such a system was to be introduced. No consultation took place on how the system should be operated and it was introduced at Christmas - the busiest time of the year.
3. The responsibility of operating the system rests with checkout operators and customer service desk. There is no support from management, and all queries/problems, either mechanical or operational have to be addressed by the checkout operator.
4. Frequently staff members have been abused and shouted at by customers who find the system inoperable and frustrating. There is insufficient notice displayed to customers as to how the system is to operate. There are only two external notices on display in the car park informing customers how the system operates. The display notice does not inform customers that they are required to spend more than £3.00 in the store before they are entitled to free parking. Therefore, frequently customers enter the store, purchase goods worth less than £3.00, expect free car parking and when they are informed at checkouts that the checkout operators is not allowed to validate their ticket, they become abusive and angry.
5. On average there are twenty-seven complaints a day in relation to the car parking system, which are logged in a book at the customer service desk.
6. The car parking system has not been consistently in operation since the date of introduction. Management often decide not to operate the system for long periods of time, up to seven days or more. This clearly leads to a level of confusion/frustration amongst regular customers who attend Tesco, Mallow. The frustration that is experienced by these customers is directly taken out on workers who are employed in the Tesco store.
7. The machine in the porch of the store, regularly malfunctions. This results in customers who are entitled to free car parking, being charged for the length of time they have had their car in the park. Obviously the customer returns to the checkout operator, stating that they are entitled to free car parking, but are being charged by the machine. In these situations, the customer is compensated and refunded the amount they have paid to the machine and the money is taken either from the till at that particular checkout or from the customer service desk. However, as a consequence of this, it has led to a shorts problem in tills which has been raised by management and operators have been informed that unless this situation improves, that disciplinary action will be taken. This is utterly unacceptable.
8. Complaints have been received by this Union in relation to staff being confronted by customers while not at work, and the employees concerned have received complaints, abuse and shouting from customers who are aggravated and aggrieved at the current parking system in operation in this store.
9. The Company argues that this incorporates all aspect of customer service. This is refuted by this Union, on the basis that no other member of MANDATE employed in Tesco nationwide has to operate this system. The Company did not adequately research the system or consult with staff. The system is problematic for workers particularly those located at checkout areas or customer service desks. Prior to December, 1998, the Company employed security personnel to look after its car park. This system was effective, customer friendly and easily administered. The Union sought the re-introduction of this system but management rejected it. The servicing of the car parking system should be removed completely from the checkouts.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. There is an ongoing parking problem in Mallow and at several customer feedback sessions it became apparent that it was necessary to introduce a payment system in Tesco Mallow's car park in order to maintain customer satisfaction, their loyalty and ultimately the stability of employment.
2. Staff and customers were informed two months in advance of the introduction of the new system. Communication sessions were held for sales assistants in Tesco Mallow before the system went into operation. No grievance was raised with local management.
3. The basic nature and level of responsibility of sales assistants in Tesco Mallow has not changed as a result of the introduction of ticket stamping. The ticket stamping has simply enhanced the service the Company can provide its customers, customer service being the primary duty of its sales assistants.
4. There is established precedent within Tesco Ireland, i.e. Bloomfields Food Hall, Tesco Clondalkin and Tesco Jervis Centre, where the same car parking system is in operation and sales assistants operating checkouts, along with their other duties, validate the car parking tickets. The Union has not raised a grievance with the Company in any other location.
5. The Company have made considerable investment in Tesco Mallow in order to keep pace with change and to remain competitive in what is a very aggressive market. This ultimately enhances job security and employment in general. Such investment should not lead to any pay claims.
6. The claim before the Court is clearly a cost increasing one and is, therefore, in breach of the Cost Stabilisation Clause in Partnership 2000.
7. Concession of this claim would lead to an unacceptable precedent in relation to the introduction of other customer service enhancing initiatives into the future. This would include current locations and future locations with car parking difficulties which must be addressed to maintain commercial viability in town centre locations and customer satisfaction.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court considered the written and oral submissions made by the parties.
The Court is conscious of the Company's concern that improvements in customer service should be seen as normal requirements and not seen as negotiating items when they arise.
The Union for its part argues that it is not reasonable for these employees to deal with the complaints arising in relation to car parking.
The Court, taking into account all the issues involved, recommends that employees concerned stamp the ticket but that the Company find alternative means of dealing with any complaints.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Finbarr Flood
13th July, 1999______________________
T.O'D./D.T.Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Tom O'Dea, Court Secretary.