FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2001 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : HIGHLIGHTERS LIMITED (REPRESENTED BY THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - MANDATE DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Pierce Worker Member: Mr. Somers |
1. Pay claim.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company is a wholly owned subsidiary of the Superquinn Group which was established in 1990. It employs approximately seventy staff who are engaged in the promotion and demonstration of products within the Superquinn supermarket chain. The Union is seeking the same percentage pay increases for its members employed by the Company as were awarded to the Superquinn staff.
The Union states that there has always been a pay linkage between the two companies. The Company rejects the claim stating that there is no linkage and the claim is cost increasing and prohibited under the terms of the Programme for Prosperity and Fairness.
The dispute could not be resolved at local level and was the subject of a conciliation conference under the auspices of the Labour Relations Commission. As agreement was not reached, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 5th of March, 2002, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 28th of May, 2002, the earliest date suitable to the parties.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Company shares common directors with the main Superquinn board. The Human Resources Department of Superquinn advises and acts in industrial relations and staff related matters in the Company.
2. All pay increases due under national and local agreements have always been applied at the same time in both companies and administered through the Superquinn wages department and payroll system.
3. The workers concerned enjoy other conditions as the staff in Superquinn such as the store discount scheme and service related holidays.
4. There has been a pay linkage between the two Companies for thirteen years. The Workers concerned should receive the same percentage increases as were paid to the Superquinn staff.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. There is no linkage between the companies. They are separate legal entities and are separately run.
2. The Company is entitled to operate the pay rates as it sees fit.
3. The claim is cost increasing and prohibited under the terms of the Programme for Prosperity and Fairness and therefore, cannot be conceded.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court accepts that the employer in this case is a separate entity from its parent Company. However, the close working proximity of the staff concerned with those of the parent Company and the fact that previous special productivity increases have been applied to the Highlighter's staff without a requirement for corresponding concessions cannot be ignored.
In the Court's view, the circumstances which justified the payment of the 2001 special increases, unrelated to productivity or other concessions to staff in the parent Company, apply equally to those associated with the present claim. In those circumstances the Court recommends concession of the Union's claim.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
5th June, 2002______________________
GB/MBDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Gerardine Buckley, Court Secretary.