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 - MANDATE DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Keogh Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Dispute concerning rates of pay.
BACKGROUND:
2. The dispute concerns 88 workers who are employed in the Gallery Restaurant in Roches Stores, Patrick Street, Cork. The catering staff employed by the Company are currently paid above the Joint Labour Committee (JLC) rate for the sector, however, they are paid less than the retail rate which is the rate applicable to the majority of staff in Roches Stores. The Union's claim is for a review of the pay rates of the claimants to bring them in line with the rates of pay in the rest of the store. The difference in pay was the subject of an Equal Pay claim in 1995. However, the Equality Officer found that there was no discrimination and that the claimants had no entitlement to the same rate of remuneration as sales assistants. Subsequently the Union submitted a further claim in 1998.
The Company rejected the claim. The dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commission. A conciliation conference was held on the 15th of March, 1999 but agreement was not reached. The dispute was referred to the Labour Court by the Labour Relations Commission on the 26th of March, 1999. A Court hearing was held in Cork on the 8th of September, 1999.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The worker concerned who are employed in the Gallery Restaurant, are all Roches Stores' staff and have the same terms and conditions of employment as the rest of the workers within the store, with the exception of pay. Their rate of pay is £5.25 per hour and sales assistants are paid £6.20 per hour.
2. When recruiting, the Company advertises in the local press using the Company name and logo. It does not advertise separately for the Gallery, and a standard application form is used. Successful applicants are placed in an Area or Department in the store at the discretion of the Personnel Department. At the time of employment the claimants are not aware of the difference in the rate of pay between the Gallery and the rest of the store.
3. The Gallery staff are governed by the same terms and conditions as all other Roches Stores' staff. The same "customer care" and "customer service" policies apply. Any training being conducted within the store involves Gallery staff as well as other areas.
4. The Equality Officer in his recommendation of 1998 found in four out of five categories which he had to consider that in terms of skill, physical effort, responsibility and working conditions the claimants work was of higher value. The mental effort, he found, was equal.
5. The Union, at various local discussions and recognising the Company's difficulty with the claim for increased pay rates, suggested that an increase be put on the top point of the scale. This means that, at the very least, a worker in the Gallery after 6 years service with the Company would achieve some parity with their colleagues in the shop. Management rejected the claim.
6. The Company has in the past and as recently as May, requested that some Gallery staff should go to the Food Department to assist with stock-taking. This movement of staff around the store at busy times is not unusual and demonstrates the Company's belief that the Gallery staff are as capable as the rest of the store staff except when it comes to remuneration.
7. The Company states that in effect it operates two businesses under the one roof and that the rates for staff in the shop are determined at trade level through negotiations with the Union and that pay rates in the Gallery are linked to the JLC rates for the Catering Industry. The Company has always paid above the JLC rate. The Company has in fact established a link between the sales assistants' rate in the shop and the rate of pay in the Gallery. Commonality exists in a number of areas in the terms and conditions of employment between staff in the Gallery and workers in the main shop i.e. Christmas Bonus, Service Pay, Holidays, Staff Discount, Pension Contributions, Overtime Rates, Staff Uniform. It should also extend to rates of pay.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The claim is cost increasing and is precluded under Partnership 2000. Both the Company and the Union have committed to Partnership 2000. The Union expects the Company to honour its commitments under Partnership 2000. The Company in turn expects the Union to honour its commitments to the 'no' cost increasing claims clause.
2. The Gallery restaurant is run on a similar cost basis as other restaurants in Cork city centre with whom it competes. The Company has invested substantially in the restaurant and, therefore, it must ensure that there is a return on it.
3. The Company cannot accommodate any concessions in pay as this would have to be passed on to the customer and would render the business uncompetitive and give advantage to competitors and could force closure of the business. Roches Stores has closed the restaurant in its Wilton Cork Store and has given the running of the Blackrock restaurant to Bewleys, as these outlets were not commercially viable.
4. Most of Roches Stores Department Store competitors do not have catering. Where it does exist e.g., BTs Cork, Arnotts Dublin, and Roches Stores in Henry Street, Dublin and Galway, the rates of pay are determined by the catering rate in those locations i.e. the competitive rates. The catering rates of pay are agreed rates and are based on the Catering JLC and applied to outlets in the Cork area.
5. If any concession were made to the Union's claim, it would have a detrimental effect on the viability of the business in Cork and would have an impact on the other operations in Roches Stores.
RECOMMENDATION:
It is clear from the submissions of the parties that the pay differential which the Union is seeking to eliminate has arisen from the long standing arrangements whereby sales staff and catering staff employed in in-store restaurants are covered by separate negotiating machinery. In the case of the sales staff pay and conditions are determined by local sectoral agreements whereas restaurant staff come within the scope of the Joint Labour Committee for the Catering Trade.
The information available to the Court suggests that these arrangements apply in all other retail establishments which provide an in-store restaurant service. Consequently, any change made in these arrangements in respect of the present claim would have serious implications for all other similar employments.
In these circumstances it is considered inappropriate to pursue the present claim in respect of an individual store and the Court does not recommend its concession.
In the course of the hearing the Company indicated that opportunities exist for restaurant staff to transfer to the sales areas where vacancies arise. The Court would suggest that the parties have further discussion with a view to agreeing an arrangement whereby restaurant staff wishing to transfer to sales would, subject to suitability, be favourably considered for any vacancies arising. Where staff do transfer, their service in the restaurant should be preserved for all purposes.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
28th September, 1999______________________
T.O'D./D.T.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Tom O'Dea, Court Secretary.