FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1); INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT; 1990 PARTIES : TESCO IRELAND LIMITED - AND - MANDATE DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr McHenry Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Back store changes
BACKGROUND:
2. As part of a restructuring programme, the Company is moving away from its current direct delivery system to a centralised distribution system. It is building 3 large central distribution warehouses, into which all supplier products will be delivered. Local Tesco outlets will order goods directly from the 3 warehouses. Of the Company's 400 suppliers, 23 have been centralised to date. There are approximately 170 staff involved in the claim, including 76 Chargehands.
The Union sought discussions with the Company to assess the impact on its members in the back-store/goods-inward area. Meetings were held in July and October, 1999. Although progress was made, the following issues are still in dispute: (1) Compensation for loss of samples/"yellow book". The "yellow book" refers to a system where managers in the back stores receive gifts/credit from supplier/delivery personnel for their own benefit. The Union is seeking an ex-gratia award of 2 years' loss. (2) Red-circling of No. 2, 3 and 4 positions. The Company proposed on the 29th of October, 1999, that the 'red-circling' of No.s 2, 3 and 4 staff should only apply to those employed before the 12th of December, 1996. (3) New jobs' responsibility and related productivity. The Union is seeking a productivity payment as it believes that centralised distribution will result in significant improvements for the Company.
During the same period of time, national negotiations were taking place on the business change, staff flexibility, and pay and benefits agenda. In September, 1999, proposals entitled "Building our Future" were put to ballot by all members of MANDATE, and were accepted on the 19th of October, 1999. On the 29th of October, 1999, the Company submitted its final proposals in relation to centralisation, and its impact on the back store staff. The proposals included a lumpsum payment of £500 to the managers in an effort to solve the issue of the samples/"yellow book". The proposals were rejected and the dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commission. A conciliation conference took place on the 17th of December, 1999. As the parties did not reach agreement, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the18th of February, 2000, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 29th of March, 2000.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS
3. 1. Samples.
This practise is common in the retail sector, and is looked upon as a significant benefit by the members concerned. Some workers could receive up to £5,000 per year in gifts. With the introduction of centralisation, the number of deliveries and, therefore, gifts will fall significantly.
2. Red circling of No.s 2, 3 and 4 positions.
It is totally unreasonable for the Company to define 'existing established No. 2 staff' as those employed pre the 12th of December,1996. The date should be from the date of agreement. For No.s 3 and 4 staff, the Union would consider a 12 month cut-off point from the date of agreement as reasonably fair.
3. New jobs' resposibility and related productivity
The new centralised distribution system will result in significant productivity improvements and efficiencies in the goods receiving area. The Company should negotiate a productivity payment with the workers who have co-operated at all times with the changes introduced by the Company.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS
4 1. Samples
The issue of samples is a matter between the supplying company and the individual who receives them. Samples are not part of the terms and conditions of employment. The Company is not taking anything away and, therefore, no compensation is due.
2. Red-circling of No.s 2, 3 and 4 staff
The Agreement entitled "Building our Future" applied to all retail staff represented by the Union, including those involved in this claim, and was accepted by them. Clause 2 of the Agreement, entitled 'Staff flexibility post 12th of December, 1996' states "Staff will be scheduled to suit the needs of the business, taking into account their individual needs." It is unreasonable of the Union to expect this group of workers to be treated more favourably than other staff who are also undergoing change.
3. New jobs' responsibility and related productivity
As part of the "Building our Future" Agreement, the Company has already paid out £15 million to staff for productivity and co-operation with changes. There are no added responsibilities for the goods-inward staff as a result of centralisation, rather , a change of emphasis in the work.
RECOMMENDATION:
Samples
In the exceptional circumstances of this case, the Court considers that some compensatory arrangements should be put in place for any loss of this benefit arising from the change to centralised distribution. The Court recommends that the parties should identify the extent of such loss, and the degree to which it is attributable to the changes introduced. Having done so, the parties should agree an ex-gratia payment appropriate to each individual manager concerned.
No. 2, 3 and 4 backdoor staff.
The Court notes that the staff in question will not suffer any financial loss in consequence of re-deployment. The Court also notes the terms of Clause 2 of the"Building our Future" agreement. Having regard to these factors, the Court recommends that the parties enter into local level discussions in relation to re-deployment of individual staff members where this becomes necessary.
Productivity claim
The Court does not consider that the changes to centralised distribution goes beyond what was envisaged by the Building our Future agreement in providing for co-operation with business changes in the future. Accordingly, the Court does not recommend concession of this claim.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
19th April, 2000______________________
CON/CONDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Ciaran O'Neill, Court Secretary.