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 McHenry Worker Member: Mr. Somers |
1. Pay and conditions.
BACKGROUND:
2. The dispute before the Court concerns a claim by the Union on behalf of approximately 50% of the butchers employed by the Company for an improvement in their pay and conditions of employment.
In late 1999 the Company concluded an agreement with other staff in the Company, including the remaining butchers, on pay, staff flexibility and business change.
Separate negotiations were ongoing regarding the butchers involved in this dispute.
The following issues are in dispute:
(1)The future of the butcher's trade within the Company
The Union fears that due to the changes envisaged within the meat department, skilled butchers will disappear. The butchers will be forced into other areas of the store. The Company states that it will provide security of employment and ongoing career development for butchers, there is no redundancy situation for butchers and there is no policy to cease recruiting apprentices.
(2)The operational difficulties associated with O'Kanes/Lenards products
The Union states that the move to Central Distribution has caused many problems. The issue regarding Lenards has abated slightly as Lenards are pre-packing their own products but it is expected by the Company that if agreement is reached this will be done in-store by butchers.
Regarding the issue of O'Kanes, the Union states that some problems have been dealt with but there are still outstanding problems. O'Kanes are still leaving products outside stores early in the morning which can be left there for most of the day. In some stores Management are helping with the O'Kanes delivery but, despite Company assurances to address this problem, meat is still being left outside.
The Company states O'Kanes and Lenards deliver to its stores throughout the country and that local store managers have been instructed to provide help to the meat department staff in handling the products where help is considered necessary.
(3)Management proposals for greater flexibility/interchangeability
The Union is concerned that flexibility within the butchery area will lead to de-skilling. Some butchers wish to stay in the meat department. Pressure should not be put on butchers to cover for other staff absences in different areas of the store in which they are not trained.
(4)Apprentices
Apprentices have been recruited under the Dublin Master Victuallers Association (DMVA) terms.
The Company has always abided by the DMVA terms. In May, 1999, the DMVA increased the rates for apprentices and dropped the qualification period from 4 years to 3 years with effect from September 1999. The Company refused to implement these changes denying any ties with the DMVA regarding pay and conditions of employment. The Company states that the proposed new rates are in excess of the DMVA rates.
The Company made an offer to these butchers increasing the top of the pay scale to £6.93 per hour which included the 7.5% skill differential. The Union is seeking an hourly rate of £8 for its members and it is not happy with the proposed changes in their work practices. The Company states that its offer is fair and reasonable.
Local discussions failed to resolve the dispute. The dispute was the subject of a conciliation conference under the auspices of the Labour Relations Commission held on the 17th of January, 2000. As agreement was not reached the dispute was referred to the Labour Court under Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 22nd of March, 2000.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Union is concerned that as a result of the proposed changes within the meat department, skilled butchers will no longer be required. They will be forced to work in other areas of the store. The butchers should be offered a reasonable redundancy package.
2. Management have indicated that it does not envisage taking on apprentice butchers in the future.
3. The workers concerned are entitled to a higher increase in pay as they are skilled workers and they are being asked to take on extra duties for which they are not trained.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. Changes in the meat department have been brought about by customer demands and an increase in health and safety regulations. In order to remain competitive the Company has to respond to customer needs.
2. There is no intention to reduce the number of butchers as their skills are required. The question of redundancy does not arise. Training will be provided for any extra duties taken on by the butchers.
3. The Company will address any individual concerns that arise as a result of the implementation of change.
4. The offer is fair and reasonable. Any further increase would have repercussive effects throughout the Company.
RECOMMENDATION:
The issues before the Court relate to approximately 50% of the butchers employed by the Company. The Company has concluded agreements with all other representatives in the company in relation to ongoing business change and flexibility, including the remaining butchers employed by the Company. The Company has pointed out that changes in the Meat Department are largely being brought about by changing Customer Demands and increasing Health and Safety Regulations.
The Union put forward the following four claims before the Court:
- the future of the butcher's trade within the company,
- the operational difficulties associated with O'Kanes/Lenards products,
- management proposals for flexibility/interchangeability,
- rates for apprentices and the duration of the apprenticeship for butchers.
The Court recommends as follows:
The Future of the Butcher's Trade
The Union has a fear that the trade of butchery is being eroded within the company and that eventually the Company will no longer require a skilled person to carry out this function. Such a fear is understandable considering the changes which have taken place in the supermarket business, particularly due to the increased volume of pre-packed meat, however, the Court notes the assurances given by the Company:-
- there is no redundancy situation for butchers,
- there is no policy on non recruitment of apprentices,
- there will be continued employment for all butchery staff given the phased introduction of Centrally Prepared Meats (CPM),
- there will be development of the Meat Department in a gradual but progressive way while at the same time providing security of employment and ongoing career development.
The limit of the agreement on Centrally Prepared Meats allows for up to 25% of the Meat Department to be CPM. It is currently at 4% and in view of this gap and the assurances given by the Company, the Court can see no reason for immediate concern by butchers.
Operational Difficulties With O'Kanes/Lenards
The Court notes that the Union have indicated that the issue of Lenards has abated slightly as Lenards are pre-packing and merchandising their own products. If it becomes necessary in the future for this work to be carried out by butchers, then the Court notes management's commitment to address any specific individual concerns that arise as a consequence of change.
With regard to the O'Kanes issue the Court notes from the additional submissions made by the parties, as requested by the Court following the hearing, some problems have been dealt with but that many of these difficulties are still ongoing. The Court recommends that the residual operational difficulties should be dealt with at local level.
Management Proposals for Flexibility/Interchangeability
Management made proposals on 1st November, 1999 to the Union in exchange for ongoing business change and flexibility. The Court recommends that these proposals should be accepted by the Union on behalf of the butchers represented in this claim.
Included in these proposals is an increase in pay and maintenance of the skill differential of 7.5% to the SIPTU butchery staff.
The Court recommends that on acceptance of all aspects of this recommendation, the Company should apply the proposed new rates retrospective to 21st October, 1999.
Rates for Apprentices and the Duration of the Apprenticeship for Butchers
The Court notes that the proposed new rates for apprentices are in excess of the Dublin Master Victualler's Association (DMVA) rates. The Court recommends acceptance of these rates as incorporated into the overall proposals on business change and flexibility.
In view of the changes which have taken place in the duration of the apprenticeship for the Retail Meat Trade, which has been changed from 4 years to 3 years, the Court recommends that discussions between the parties should take place on this matter.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
26th April, 2000______________________
GB/CCDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Gerardine Buckley, Court Secretary.