FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2001 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : MANGAN BROTHERS CASH & CARRY (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - MANDATE DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Pierce Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Rates of pay, revised terms of PPF, sick pay scheme.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company has seven cash and carry wholesale outlets in Ireland and employs 230 staff. The head office is located in Ennis, Co. Clare. The dispute relates to the 15 head office employees who have been represented by Mandate since July, 2000.
In Summer, 2000, negotiations took place locally and an agreement was reached and accepted by the Union. In January, 2001, the Union served a further wage claim on the Company and discussions took place locally but no agreement could be reached. The matter was the subject of a conciliation conference under the auspices of the Labour Relations Commission on the 19th of September, 2001.
As no agreement could be reached, the matter was referred to the Labour Court under Section 26(1)(a)(b) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 27th of March, 2002, in Galway.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS
3. 1. The Union is prepared to concede the first three days sick pay if the Company is prepared to pay the wage increase with relevant retrospection. 2. The revised terms of the P.P.F. have been paid to the Company employees in the Sligo outlets.
3. Other employers in the sector have significantly increased their rates.
4. The workers are anxious to avoid industrial action if possible.
EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS
4. 1. The claim is cost increasing and as such is precluded under clause 11 of the Programme for Prosperity and Fairness.
2. Concession of any element of this claim will immediately lead to knock on claims from other branches.
3. Electricity charges have increased by 8.5% in the past year and insurance premia have increased by over 50% in the past 2 years.
4. Any additional increases in its cost base will seriously jeopardise the Groups’ ability to maintain, and where possible, increase its market share.
5. The concept of waiting days is a very familiar one and the regular practice is where a sick pay scheme is provided, waiting days are an integral feature of the scheme.
RECOMMENDATION:
Having considered the submission of both parties, the Court, recommends that the 2% pay increase and the 1% lump sum due under the revised terms of the Programme for Prosperity and Fairness (PPF), should be paid from the due dates.
The Company indicated to the Court that it has a problem with the sick pay scheme as it presently operates. The Court notes that the Union does not have an objection in principle to amending the sick pay scheme as envisaged by the Company. However, it seeks a wage increase in lieu. The Court does not recommend concession of the claim for a wage increase as it is precluded by the terms of the PPF.
The Court recommends that discussions should take place between the parties on the proposed amendment to the sick pay scheme. These discussions should be completed not later than six weeks from the date of this recommendation.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
15th April, 2002______________________
HMCD/MBDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Helena McDermott, Court Secretary.