FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : SUPERMARKET SUPPLIES LIMITED (TRADING AS LONDIS SUPERMARKET, NEW ROSS) - AND - AMALGAMATED TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr McHenry Worker Member: Mr. Somers |
1. Pay Increase.
BACKGROUND:
2. The dispute concerns one worker, a butcher, who commenced work with the Company in December, 1995. His rate of pay, on commencement, was agreed at £190.00 per week. This was increased to £211.12 per week in December, 1997. On the 11th February, 1999, the Union, on behalf of the worker, sought to have his rate of pay increased to the 'local industry norm' of £231.03 per week. In its reply to the claim, the Company sought to have the claim deferred until turnover in the supermarket increased, at which time the claim would be reviewed. This was unacceptable to the Union and the matter was referred to the Rights Commissioner Service of the Labour Relations Commission for investigation. The Company objected to such an investigation. Despite continued representation to the Company on this matter, he did not receive any increase until early September, 1999, when his weekly rate was increased by £25.08 to £236.20. The Union sought to have the increase made retrospective to December, 1998 and, subsequently, the Company offered one month's retrospection, which was unacceptable to the Union.
The Union also claims that the increase conceded by the Company did not include the 1.5% third phase increase due under Partnership 2000.
Accordingly, the Union is seeking an amount of £1074.20 which comprises the retrospective application, to September, 1998, of the pay increase already conceded (amounting to £975 gross), plus the 1.5% increase under P2000 from September 1, 1999 which amounts to £99.20.
The Union referred the matter to the Labour Court, on the 15th October, 1999, in accordance with Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. The Court carried out its investigation at a hearing on the 22nd March, 2000. The Company declined to attend the Court hearing.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:-
3. 1. The rate of pay sought on behalf of the worker is the rate that applies in other supermarkets in the locality and was established by the Union following a survey in the area.
2. The employer's stated reason for not granting the increase sought, i.e., that the worker was not prepared to be more flexible in his working hours, is rejected. When the worker started first, he worked up to 48 hours per week. Subsequently, he eventually had his weekly hours reduced to 44 hours, and ultimately to 39 hours. He would receive only a total of £10 for all hours worked over the 39 hours in any given week. The worker also used to work a late shift on Thursdays, i.e., 12 noon to 9pm.
RECOMMENDATION:
It is regrettable that the employer did not attend the Court hearing and did not present a written statement to the Court. On the basis of the evidence presented at the hearing, the Court is not satisfied that the appropriate increases due under Partnership 2000 were paid to the claimant. Therefore, in settlement of this claim, the Court rejects the claim for an increase in pay, but recommends that an examination of the claimant's pay record should be carried out to ascertain whether Partnership 2000 increases were paid, and, if not, the outstanding amounts should be paid as a lump sum payment to the claimant.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
14th April, 2000______________________
MK/MKDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Michael Keegan, Court Secretary.