FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : ROCHES STORES (TALLAGHT) (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - MANDATE DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Flood Employer Member: Mr Keogh Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Rate of pay for Supervisors in Tallaght
BACKGROUND:
2. The Union has submitted a pay claim on behalf of seven supervisors employed at Roches Stores in Tallaght. It claims that in June, 2000, sales assistants were awarded a special pay increase which included a long service increment for those with more than eight year's service. The Union states that this led to an erosion of the differential between sales assistants and supervisions and accordingly are seeking an increase of 13% per week for supervisors with more than eight year's service and 6% for those with less than eight year's service.
The Company rejected the Union's claim. It states that there is no pay relationship between supervisors and sales assistants. The Company claims that this was acknowledged in Labour Court Recommendation LCR16198. It also contends that supervisors received a special pay increase of £1,500 per year in October, 1998 which the sales assistants did not receive.
As no agreement was possible between the parties the dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commission. A conciliation conference was held on the 5th September 2000 but no agreement was reached. The dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 5th September, 2000 under Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. The Court investigated the dispute on the 24th January, 2001.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Union is seeking the restoration of the differential between sales assistants and supervisors' rates of pay.
2. While the supervisors did receive a special increase of £1,500 in 1998 it was part of an agreement on the extension of trading hours.
3. Supervisors in Tallaght have the same conditions of employment as sales assistants, such as overtime payments for Sundays. In addition, they also receive the same service pay as sales assistants.
4. If the claim is not conceded, there will be a serious erosion of the differential between the two grades.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. There is no relationship between the pay of supervisors and the pay of sales assistants and this was acknowledged by the Labour Court in LCR16198.
2. Supervisors received a special pay increase of £1, 500 in 1998 which the sales assistants did not receive.
3. Both category of grades are completely separate, one is a management grade while the other is a general staff grade.
4. The pay structure for supervisors is set by the Company and is not negotiated through the Union.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court having considered the arguments made by the parties finds no evidence to support the Union's claim that a relativity exists in this case.
The Court, therefore, cannot concede the Union claim.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Finbarr Flood
29th JANUARY, 2001______________________
LW/LWChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Larry Wisely, Court Secretary.