FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : TESCO IRELAND LIMITED - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Keogh Worker Member: Mr Rorke |
1. Increase in pay.
BACKGROUND:
2. Tesco Ireland employs in excess of 9,700 people in 75 branches throughout the country. In the past year talks have been ongoing at national level in relation to business change, staff flexibility and pay.
The dispute concerns the Union's claim for an increase in pay on behalf of butchers employed by the Company in the Dublin area. It argues that the introduction of a new chicken product (Lenards) into the stores and a change from the normal method of delivery to central distribution has increased substantially the workload of the butchers.
The Company rejects the claim. Its position is that no significant change has occurred. Local level discussions failed to resolve the issues and the dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commission. Conciliation conferences took place on the 22nd of June and the 11th of August, 1999. As agreement could not be reached the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 10th of September, 1999, under Section 26 (1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 7th of October, 1999.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. Prior to the change to central distribution, deliveries were made by suppliers directly to the Butchery Department, weighed and stacked in a fridge. Under the new arrangement products are left at the door of the shop and butchers are required to transport the product to the Butchery Department, weigh the product and place it in a fridge. In some stores this entails considerable distances from the shop door to the coldroom.
2. The Company's promise to provide a trolley/storeperson to help with deliveries has proved impractical due to staffing problems.
3. Lenards is a type of prepared chicken and occupies a full counter. It consists of a number of different recipes. The butchers are required to prepare the chicken, dress the counter, serve customers and answer questions regarding cooking times, ingredients, etc.
4. This claim stands alone from the general discussions on change within the Company, as the butchers have not been compensated for their ongoing co-operation with change in the past. In certain situations the butchers are not in a position to avail of their break entitlements and this has caused considerable stress. The workers have shown patience in the past year while management has dragged its heels in order to include these issues in the generality of the negotiations on change.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. Distribution changes have been ongoing over the years. The recent adjustment to distribution arises from the need to ensure total food traceability, food quality and adherence to health and safety standards.
2. The responsibility for receiving, checking and transporting product from the goods receiving area to the coldroom rests with butchery personnel. Suppliers are not responsible for this.
3. The Company has responded to the Union's concerns (details supplied) and is prepared to deal with any other operational matters that arise.
4. The preparation of the Lenard's range is similar to the preparation of other meat products which has taken place over many years. The preparation is made simpler as a result of Lenard's short "garnish" guide.
5. The meat range had been continuously developing to meet customer needs and this has not led to claims in the past. Butchers already receive a pay differential for their work.
6. The Company is attempting to develop its product range in an effort to improve sales, to protect market share and in turn staff employment. In the circumstances, the Union's claim is cost increasing and, therefore, prohibited under Partnership 2000.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court considered the written and oral submissions of the parties. The Court is of the view that this claim should not be dealt with in isolation of the broader national negotiations on change within the organisation. The Court noted the discrepancy between the parties regarding the status of these talks. The Court recommends that these talks should be reconstituted without delay and this issue should be part of that agenda.
It was made clear at the hearing that there are serious operational difficulties associated with the logistics of these new changes. Therefore, the Court recommends that separate talks commence immediately on the operational and workload problems which have emerged. In particular, every effort should be made to address the effects of that workload on the claimants.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
20th October, 1999.______________________
FB/BCDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Fran Brennan, Court Secretary.