FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : MUSGRAVES CASH & CARRY (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Flood Employer Member: Mr Pierce Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Increase in basic rate of pay.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Union has submitted a claim for a £1.00 per hour increase on behalf of its members. It claims that its members are falling behind other workers in the retail sector. The Union states that workers in Dunnes Stores, Roches Stores and Tesco have all secured pay increases during 2000.
The Company rejected the claim as cost increasing. It claims that some years ago the Union sought the abolition of a service based pay scale in exchange for a flatter but higher rate of pay for all employees. This rate is currently at £6.00 per hour. The Company also provides generous benefit plans to staff, including non-contributory pension, disability and life assurance.
As no agreement was possible between the parties, the dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commission. Conciliation conferences were held on the 30th of January, 2001 and the 14th of February, 2001 but no agreement was reached. The dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 2nd of March, 2001 under Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. The Court investigated the dispute on the 18th of April, 2001.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The workers have fallen behind in pay terms relative to other workers in the retail sector.
2. The Company is a market leader. The pay increase being sought is modest and should be conceded.
3. The 2% under the P.P.F. must be paid to these workers with no strings attached.
4. If workers are to support future national pay agreements, there must be a mechanism in place where these workers can share in the Company's success.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. Staff have benefited from an increase in the share value of 40% between 1999 and 2000 and over 100% between 1997 and 2000.
2. The Company pays the highest rate of basic pay in the wholesale trade. It also offers a benefit package that is superior to that of its competitors.
3. Any comparison by the Union to the retail sector is entirely disingenuous and misleading, as the wholesale trade is a completely different business.
4. The claim is cost increasing and is, therefore, precluded under the terms of the Programme for Prosperity and Fairness (P.P.F.)
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court is concerned that there appeared to be a lack of clarity on the specific issues before the Court.
A number of positions were outlined at the hearing, including a Union position that had not been considered by the Company.
Given the above, the Court recommends that the parties enter into discussions to try to reach agreement. If they fail to do so, they can refer the areas of disagreement to the Court for consideration.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Finbarr Flood
2nd May, 2001______________________
LW/CCChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Larry Wisely, Court Secretary.