FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2001 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : CLERY AND COMPANY (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - MANDATE DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Pierce Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Review of a meal allowance.
BACKGROUND:
2. The dispute relates to approximately 30 workers who are Mandate members working as sales staff in the Company's O'Connell street store. The Union is seeking a review of their meal allowance which the claimants are paid when working late evenings. They are currently paid £3.00. The workers' SIPTU colleagues receive £3.69 when they work the late evening. The meal allowance was part of an agreement reached in 1987 between the Dublin City Traders and the Unions to allow stores to trade on Thursday nights to 8 p.m. This provided for either a hot meal or a meal voucher to cover the cost of purchasing a meal. In 1996 an extended trading agreement was concluded between the Company and SIPTU which allowed the store to stay open past the closing time of 5.30 p.m. to the new time of 6.30 p.m. That agreement provided for the £3.00 meal allowance to be index linked to the rate of wage increase from April, 1997 and this increased the SIPTU workers allowance to £3.69. MANDATE workers rejected the agreement. They continued to work to 5.30 p.m. daily and to 8 p.m. on Thursday. SIPTU employees now work during the week up to 6.30 p.m Monday to Wednesday and Saturday and to 9 p.m. on Thursday and 8 p.m. on Friday. Both groups continue to work a basic 37½ hour week. All new entrants work the extended hours as per the 1996 agreement and receive the voucher for £3.69. At local negotiations the Company offered to increase the voucher value from £3.00 to £3.25 with effect from 1st November,2000. The Union rejected the offer as being insufficient. The dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commission. A conciliation conference was held on the 16th August, 2001. Agreement was not reached. The dispute was referred to the Labour Court by the Labour Relations Commission on the 22nd August, 2001. The dispute was received in the Court on the 22nd August, 2001. A Court hearing was held on the 3rd October, 2001.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The 1987 agreement stipulated that staff be provided with a meal. There is only one hot meal available for under £4.00. This meal can be purchased by SIPTU workers with their vouchers but MANDATE workers have to pay the additional 69 pence or purchase something less substantial. The Company is in breach of the 1987 agreement by not giving a voucher, which will cover the cost of a meal to MANDATE workers.
2. Both MANDATE and SIPTU staff work the same number of hours on a late night trading day, the only difference is in how they are rostered. On a special event evening such as an event for credit card holders or at time of stock taking MANDATE staff work to 9 p.m. as do their SIPTU colleagues. However, they only receive the voucher worth £3.00. Each time the SIPTU voucher is increased, the prices in the restaurant are increased.
3. The majority of the claimants have given long and loyal service to the Company. They see new staff, many of whom only remain in the employment for a short while, enjoy more beneficial arrangements when working late.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. SIPTU workers receive a higher meal allowance because of their participation in a comprehensive deal on extended trading hours, which was implemented in 1997. It was rejected by MANDATE staff and they retain more traditional working hours leaving the store at least one hour before their SIPTU colleagues on a daily basis.
2. The Company acknowledges that both SIPTU and MANDATE employees work a 37½ hour week. but the extended trading hours worked by SIPTU staff are more anti-social and, therefore, less favourable than those worked by MANDATE colleagues.
3. All new staff are contracted to work the less favourable, extended trading hours and, therefore, are in receipt of the enhanced meal allowance.
4. The Company offered to increase the meal allowance from £3.00 to £3.25 in line with inflation. The offer was rejected by the Union. The Company is willing to implement this revision of the meal allowance in line with inflation. The Company is also willing to re-open the 1996 comprehensive agreement if MANDATE workers wish to reconsider working the extended trading hours.
RECOMMENDATION:
Having considered all aspects of this case, the Court recommends that the offer to increase the meal allowance from £3.00 to £3.25(3.81 to 4.13 euros) with effect from 1st November, 2000 should be accepted. In order to preserve the value of the allowance into the future, the Court recommends that the allowance should be further increased in line with the Consumer Price Index from 1st January, 2002 and on an annual basis thereafter.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
10th October,2001______________________
TODDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Tom O'Dea, Court Secretary.