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: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr McHenry Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Rates of pay.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company is based in Henry Street and in 1997 opened a new warehouse in Park West. An agreement was reached that staff who transferred from Henry Street to Park West would receive an extra £10 per week.
The dispute before the Court concerns a claim by the Union on behalf of two of its members employed as drivers in Henry Street, for the extra £10 per week applicable to the drivers of Park West. The drivers concerned relieve the drivers of Park West, and also work in and out of the new warehouse.
The Company rejects the claim, stating that the extra money is applicable only to Park West drivers. Local discussions could not resolve the issue.
The dispute was the subject of two conciliation conferences under the auspices of the Labour Relations Commission held on the 12th of March, 1999, and on the 13th of May, 1999. As agreement was not reached, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court in accordance with Section 26 (1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 4th of November, 1999, the earliest date suitable to both parties.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. There has always been one rate of pay for drivers in the Company.
2. The drivers concerned should receive the extra £10 per week applicable to Park West staff, as they relieve drivers at Park West and work in and out of the new warehouse.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The drivers concerned are part of Henry Street staff and are on the correct rate of pay agreed by the Union.
2. The extra £10 per week is applicable only to Park West drivers. The drivers concerned were aware of this prior to the opening of the new warehouse, and they opted to remain in Henry Street. They do not operate out of Park West.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has carefully considered the submissions of the parties to this dispute.
It is clear that the agreement entered into in October, 1997, specifically confined the payment at issue to those individuals who transferred to the Park West facility.
For this reason, the Court does not recommend concession of the claim.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
22nd November, 1999______________________
GB/BCDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Gerardine Buckley, Court Secretary.