FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1); INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT; 1990 PARTIES : TESCO IRELAND LTD - AND - MANDATE DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr McHenry Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Application of nationally agreed pay rises
BACKGROUND:
2. The Union has submitted a claim on behalf of five members for the application of enhanced rates of pay recently agreed between the Union and the Company.
The five members concerned are employed as a special security unit which was established in 1986 to provide personal security service to the chairman of Quinnsworth group at that time. The unit remained in place following the acquisition of Quinnsworth in 1997.
The terms and conditions of employment enjoyed by the members of the special security unit at the time of the take-over were guaranteed. In October, 1999, the Company and the Union concluded a comprehensive pay agreement "Building our Future" for retail staff.
The Union claims that the five staff members employed in the special security unit were excluded by the Company from this agreement and as a result did not receive any pay increase. The Union wants this matter rectified. It states that these workers have always had a pay relationship with staff employed as general sales assistants in the store network.
- The Company states that it made it clear to the Union that the new agreement
only applied to retail staff and in that situation the only security personnel
included in the agreement were store officers and store detectives but not
members of the special security unit.
As no agreement was possible between the parties, the dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commission. Conciliation conferences were held on the 28th of October, 1999, 16th of November, 1999 and 20th of December, 1999, but no agreement was reached. The dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 17th of January, 2000 under Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. The Court investigated the dispute on the 5th of March, 2000.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. Members of the special security unit have always had their salary regulated by way of agreements applicable to the General Sales Assistant.
2. In 1996 and 1997, the Union concluded general agreements with the Company, the terms of which were applied to this group of workers.
3. No agreement, verbal or otherwise, was concluded with union representatives during 1999 national negotiations to exclude the members of the unit from the terms of the new agreement.
4. The Company is attempting to intentionally suppress the basic hourly rate for members employed in the special security unit.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company made it clear to the Union that the new agreement only applied to retail staff and did not include the staff of the special security unit.
2. The staff concerned have no involvement in the operations of the Company's various stores. Accordingly, there is no basis for the application of the agreement to this group of workers.
3. The members of the special security unit earn well in excess of those employed by the other security companies in the industry.
4. The application of a 10% pay increase to this group of workers would exacerbate an already high cost associated with this unit and could render it unviable.
RECOMMENDATION:
It is clear to the Court that an unfortunate misunderstanding developed between the parties as to the scope of the "Building our Future" agreement.
The workers associated with this claim have a long standing pay relationship with the grade of General Sales Assistant (6th Point). In the Court's view, that relationship should continue unless and until alternative arrangements are expressly agreed between the parties.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
16th March, 2000______________________
L.W./L.W.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Larry Wisely, Court Secretary.