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. The rate of pay for clerical staff employed by Roches Stores (Tallaght).
BACKGROUND:
2. The Union is seeking to address the difference in rates of pay remunerated to clerical staff in Roches Stores Head Office and those employed on clerical duties (15) at Roches Stores in Tallaght. It claims that the work of clerical staff in Tallaght is comparable to that performed at Head Office and should, therefore, be paid the same rate of pay.
The Company rejected the Union's claim. It states that an agreement was concluded with the Union in April, 2000 which specifically dealt with pay rates for both sales and clerical staff. The Company claims that this agreement was accepted following a ballot on the proposals by the staff in Tallaght.
As no agreement was possible between the parties the dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commission. A conciliation conference was held on the 17th November, 2000 but no agreement was reached. The dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 17th November, 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. There should be parity on rates of pay for clerical staff employed in Tallaght with that of their colleagues employed at Head Office.
2. There is no justification for the Company having different pay scales for staff who are of the same grade.
3. The work performed by the clerical staff in Tallaght is comparable to that performed by clerical staff at Head Office.
4. The Union asks the Court to uphold its claim.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company cannot countenance creating a separate negotiating group for clerical staff given the custom and practice of pay determination for the clerical grade.
2. Clerical staff at Head Office perform a range of duties which are different in many respects from those performed by clerical staff in Tallaght.
3. Any concession of this claim would have knock-on effects for the Company.
4. The Company concluded an agreement with the Union in April, 2000 which provided for improved rates of pay for sales and clerical staff employed in Tallaght. It included a "no cost increasing clause" which prevents any such claims being served on the Company.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court having considered the written and oral submissions, is satisfied that an agreement was reached by the parties in April, 2000 on behalf of this group.
The Court, therefore, can find no basis for conceding this 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.