FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : ROCHES STORES, BLACKROCK (REPRESENTED BY THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Pierce Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Claim by the Union for an increase in pay to maintain relativities.
BACKGROUND:
2. The claim concerns 19 general distribution workers employed at Roches Stores, Blackrock. In October, 1998, seven floor supervisors and two stockroom supervisors received an increase in their pay. The Union claims that it became aware in December 1998 that these supervisory staff received an increase of 11.5% in basic pay. The Union submitted a claim on behalf of the general distribution workers in the store for the same increase. Management rejected the claim. The dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commission. A conciliation conference was held on the 31st of March, 1999 but agreement was not reached. The dispute was referred to the Labour Court by the Labour Relations Commission on the 23rd of April, 1999. A Court hearing was held on the 9th of June, 1999.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Company appears to have granted increases to supervisory staff on the basis that other workers would not be informed and, to date, the Company has not confirmed or denied that such payments were made. It responded very negatively to the Union's claims at conciliation.
2. The workers concerned have given significant co-operation and have made a substantial contribution to ensure that the Company prospers. They should receive the same increase as granted to supervisory staff. Such exclusions distort the relativities that presently exist.
3. The Union's claim is for an increase of 11.5% on behalf of its members. The increase to the supervisory staff has altered the relativity with the general distribution grade. The increase is essential in order to restore it.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. Traditionally management salary rates in the store are decided by the Company and are adjusted in the light of national pay agreements, market circumstances and merit. The rates of pay for general distribution workers are negotiated with SIPTU and are revised by national pay agreements. The workers concerned have received all increases due to date under the Partnership Agreement.
2. There is no basis for the claim. There is no parity or relativity between the two categories either presently or in the past. There are two separate categories, management and staff.
3. The supervisors terms and conditions are set by management and take cognisance of developments at national level and the retail trade level generally. There are periodic reviews of the supervisory package ensuring that they stay in line with the trade in general. This is an accepted practice in the industry for supervisory grades.
4. It is always accepted by the Labour Court that the setting of grades for management is a Company prerogative in order to protect this category from poaching by competitors.
RECOMMENDATION:
Having considered the submissions of the parties the Court accepts that there is no established relativity between the pay of supervisors and the claimant grade. For this reason the Court does not see any basis on which the present claim should be conceded.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
18th June, 1999______________________
T.O'D./D.T.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Tom O'Dea, Court Secretary.