FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : HICKEY & COMPANY LIMITED (REPRESENTED BY THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - MANDATE DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Keogh Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. 1. Clause 3 PESP - 3%.
2. Sunday and Public Holiday working.
3. Christmas bonus.
4. Pension scheme.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company commenced trading in the early 1900s. It now employs approximately 154 people (76 full-time and 78 part-time) at its twelve branches nationwide. It is engaged in the retail of textiles, mainly for the home furnishing market.
On the 25th of March, 1998, the Union sought national discussions with the Company concerning the above claims. The Company responded that it wished to continue with its practice of local level negotiations and that the claim regarding the PESP was out of time. The issues were referred to the Labour Relations Commission in September, 1998, and a conciliation conference was held on the 22nd of September, 1998. The conference was re-convened on the 29th of April, 1999, at which the Union produced evidence that it had previously served the claim under Clause 3 of PESP on the 10th of August, 1994. The Union's claim was, therefore, lodged in time. As the 2% local bargaining clause under Partnership 2000 had not been served at the time, the Company sought to pay a percentage increase under PESP and Partnership 2000 in return for the following productivity measures:-
1. The introduction of a time and attendance system.
2. Co-operation with the introduction of new technology.
3. Standardised rest breaks across all its shops.
The Company also wished to include 1995 as a cut off date regarding Sunday and Public Holiday payments. Staff employed prior to 1995 would be paid double time, while staff employed after that date would be paid at time and a half. The Company rejected the claims for a Christmas bonus and the introduction of a pension scheme. As agreement was not possible the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 10th of June, 1999, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. The Court investigated the dispute on the 15th of October, 1999, the earliest date suitable to the parties.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The local bargaining clause of the PESP is long overdue. The 3% should be paid immediately with the parties entering into discussions in relation to the required productivity concessions. The 'price' for Sunday and Public Holiday working has now been well established in the trade and it is inappropriate to deal with the issue under PESP or Partnership 2000. The payment of the 2% under Partnership 2000 is due since the 1st of April, 1999, and should be applied retrospectively.
2. There is no Company/Union Agreement with regard to Sunday/Public Holiday working. Sunday and Public Holiday working should be voluntary for all existing staff in employment prior to the date of agreement. Double time should be paid for all hours worked, as in companies such as C & A, Marks and Spencers, Argos Debenhams, etc. Existing arrangements regarding Christmas Sunday working should remain in place.
3. The Union is seeking the introduction of a two week Christmas bonus as and from Christmas 2000. One week is by way of compensation for ongoing co-operation with Sunday and Public Holiday trading, which the Company introduced in some of its locations without agreement with the Union. The additional week's bonus should be paid in recognition of the fact that Christmas bonuses are an established condition of employment within the retail sector. A number of companies pay between one and four weeks' bonus.
4. The Company does not operate a pension scheme for its employees, even though over ninety percent of the retail sector have occupational pension schemes. Inadequate retirement income is a major cause of poverty among the elderly and there is no justification for the Company's continued refusal to introduce a defined benefit scheme before January, 2000.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company has endured an operating loss since 1996 and cannot afford to pay the full extent of the Union's claim under PESP and Partnership 2000. The Company made a genuine proposal at the Labour Relations Commission on the 18th of May, 1999. In return for minor productivity measures and for 1995 being considered as the implementation date for Sundays and Public Holiday premium payments, the Company could offer a pay increase of 3%.
2. A small number of the Company's stores operate on Sundays and Public Holidays. Since 1995 longer serving staff are paid at double time while more recent staff are paid at time and a half. This practice is commonplace in the retail trade and, in seeking 1995 as a cut-off point, the Company is merely trying to formalise a practice that currently exists and that is provided for in any new contract of employment.
3. The claim for a Christmas bonus is cost increasing and is precluded under Partnership 2000. While some companies pay a Christmas bonus, many do not. The Company is unique in that the concept of the "last minute rush" does not pertain within the dress fabric or soft home furnishing market. All of the Company's stores close early on Christmas Eve and some of the stores do not even open on Sundays in the run-up to Christmas. The payment of a Christmas bonus would, therefore, be inappropriate and incongruous.
4. The Company operates a Management discretionary pension scheme, but pension schemes are the exception rather than the norm in many retail companies. Although the Union is entitled to seek the introduction and/or improvement of a pension scheme under the auspices of Partnership 2000, the Company is not in a position to fund such a claim at this time. The Company's audited accounts substantiate the total non viability of this claim.
RECOMMENDATION:
Having considered the submissions of the parties the Court recommends that the dispute be resolved on the following basis:-
1. The increase due under Clause 3 of PESP should be paid, retrospective 1st October, 1998, in return for the productivity measures proposed by the Company.
2. The 2% increase due under Clause 2(iii) of Partnership 2000 should be paid with effect from the date of claim.
3. 1995 should be accepted as the implementation date for revised Sunday and Public Holiday premium payments. In return for agreement on this point, the Company should agree to introduce a Christmas Bonus.
4. The Court accepts, in principle, that a pension scheme should be introduced. However, the financial circumstance of the Company would not permit the introduction of such a scheme at this time. The Court notes that the Company are willing to provide more comprehensive financial information to the Union on a confidential basis. That information should be provided and discussed between the parties. Further discussion on the
introduction of a pension scheme should be deferred for 12 months and reconsidered in light of the financial circumstance of the Company at that time.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
22nd November, 1999______________________
D.G./D.T.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Dympna Greene, Court Secretary.