FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : EASONS - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr McHenry Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Exclusion of certain staff from a recent pay settlement
BACKGROUND:
2. The dispute concerns four workers who are employed at the Company's outlet at Nassau Street ( formerly Fred Hanna's book shop). They have refused to use a new computerised Time and Attendance System introduced in September, 2000 and, therefore, have not benefited from salary increases made to other workers in the Company, over and above the terms of the Programme for Prosperity and Fairness (PPF), which were part of an overall agreement made between the Company and the Union in August, 2000. The workers have received the relevant increases due under the PPF to date. The Union claimed that the workers were unfairly treated. Management rejected the claim. The dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commission. A conciliation conference was held on the 9th November, 2000 but no agreement was reached. The dispute was referred to the Labour Court by the Labour Relations Commission on the 23rd November, 2000. A Court hearing was held on the 9th January, 2001. .
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. When the Company took over the Nassau Street store in 1999, the workers there were informed that their conditions of employment would be unaffected by the transfer. They had never operated a clock in system with their former employer. The four workers have considerable service and the guarantees given by the former employer regarding their conditions of employment have not been honoured by the Company.
2. During the negotiations which led to the agreement the issue of the use of the Time Clocking Attendance System was not mentioned by Management in relation to the Nassau Street store.
3. The Union's negotiating committee agreed to recommend acceptance of the proposals and the total membership balloted on the proposals on the basis that all staff were included. The Union is seeking the implementation of the wage increases for all staff with retrospection to the August date.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The agreement provides for significant increases over and above the terms of the PPF and, in addition, gives substantial improvements in Pensions, Sick Benefit, and Death in Service Benefit. In return for these and in accordance with this agreement all staff throughout the Company were only required to honour all existing agreements, in each Eason location , in particular, the use of retailer loyalty cards,electronic purse/ smart cards, and time clock attendance systems.
2. As the four workers have not complied with the agreement the Company refused to pay them any increases agreed over and above those allowed under the PPF. The remaining workers who are using the system are being paid in accordance with the terms of the agreement.
RECOMMENDATION:
It appears to the Court that the present dispute arose because the Company failed to anticipate that the four staff members concerned would have a difficulty in agreeing to operate the clocking system in place in its other outlets. In consequence, the agreement concluded in August, 2000 did not specifically refer to the location in question and is capable of the interpretation placed on it by the Union. Nonetheless, the Company's requirement for all staff to operate this system is not unreasonable, particularly in view of the increases in pay which the agreement provides.
Having regard to all the circumstances of this case the Court recommends that the four staff members should now agree to operate the clocking system and on that basis the increases should be paid retrospective to August, 2000.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
17 January, 2001______________________
tod/todDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Tom O'Dea, Court Secretary.