FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2001 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : VILLEROY & BOCH (UK) LIMITED - AND - MANDATE DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Flood Employer Member: Mr Carberry Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. 1. Non-implementation of pay agreements and 2. Union recognition.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company sells china and fine delphware. It operates a concession in Brown Thomas, Grafton Street, and the 2 claims concern 5 workers employed there. The Union represents 300 workers directly employed by Brown Thomas.
The Company employs 250 workers in various concessions around the world. It is non-unionised and it reviews pay rates annually in April. In December 2000, the Union wrote to the Company advising it that it had not implemented an agreement in December, 1999, which included payment of various phases of the National Agreements. The Company's reply was that it did not have a recognition agreement with any union, and it had not been party to discussions with Brown Thomas.
In February, 2001, an agreement was reached between the Union and Brown Thomas on revised terms and conditions of employment. The agreement provided for increases of approximately 6% above the PPF, a shortening of the pay scale, harmonisation of pay rates and the introduction of a long service increment. In return, staff are expected to 'swipe in and out', and a new absentee policy and revised lunch arrangements have been agreed. The Union is seeking that the agreement will apply to the 5 workers in the Company's concession.
The Union referred the case to the Labour Court on the 2nd of May, 2001, in accordance with Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 30th of August, 2001.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Union tried to enter into discussions with the Company, including an invitation to attend the Labour Relations Commission, but to no avail.
2. The normal situation is that the Union has talks with companies which have concessions - in this case Brown Thomas - in regard to pay/conditions and any agreements will apply to the concessions. The Company has not implemented the agreements of December, 1999, or February, 2001.
3. The Company claims that it pays higher rates but it has not maintained differentials or paid the national agreements on the due dates.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company has contracted with its employees to review their basic rates of pay annually in April. It is the practice to look at local pay/conditions when making an award. In this case, the Brown Thomas pay agreement has been factored into the review. This way of reviewing pay rates has resulted in the Company's staff being paid higher rates of pay than those negotiated by the Union on behalf of its members.
2. The Company in the UK has a non-unionised workforce and, consequently, has no recognition agreements in place. The fact that the Union has an agreement with Brown Thomas does not mean that it has one with the Company. The concession is managed by a manager employed by and paid for by the Company. Brown Thomas has no authority to enter into agreements on behalf of the Company.
3. At no time has the question of union representation been raised with management by staff in Ireland.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court, having considered the written and oral submissions made by the parties and taking into account the statements made at the hearing, recommends that the matters referred to the Court should be progressed as per the procedures outlined in S.I. 145 of 2000 - Industrial Relations Act, 1990 (Code of Practice on Voluntary Dispute Resolution) (Declaration) Order, 2000 - and that both sides should co-operate with the process.
This code recommends that"where negotiation arrangements are not in place and where collective bargaining fails to take place..." "in the first instance, the matter should be referred to the Labour Relations Commission who will appoint an Officer from its Advisory Service to assess the issues in dispute".
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Finbarr Flood
12th September, 2001______________________
CON/CCChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Ciaran O'Neill, Court Secretary.