FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2001 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : ADAMS CHILDRENSWEAR LIMITED (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - MANDATE DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Keogh Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Review of pay rates.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company is a speciality childrens drapery chain, which was previously owned by Sears plc. In July, 1999, the Management team bought out the Irish business. They operate18 stores throughout the Republic of Ireland and employ approximately 270 staff. The Company operates different pay scales for cities and provincial locations, but has started a process to harmonise the various rates of pay by introducing a new pay structure in April, 2002.
The claim before the Court originated in Limerick, but is now on behalf of the Union’s members throughout the country. The Union is seeking the introduction of a new six point pay scale, starting at €6.90 per hour and rising in equal increments to €10.05 per hour. It is also seeking a service increment of at least 5% on top of the maximum rate after seven years’ service.
The claim was the subject of a conciliation conference under the auspices of the Labour Relations Commission on the 26th of March, 2002. Agreement was not possible, and the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 7th of June, 2002, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. The Court investigated the dispute on the 13th of August, 2002.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1.The Company’s pay rates in Limerick, Dublin and Cork are well behind comparable rates for the job in the retail sector. Other retailers such as Wallis, Shaws, Heatons, Dunnes Stores, Roches Stores, McGovern’s Limerick, Tescos, Penneys and Superquinn pay higher rates, many including long service increments.
2. The Company’s basic rate of pay is 7.82% lower than the average of the above companies and its maximum rate is 10.09% lower. The Company is trading very well and there is no excuse for it having a competitive advantage or for paying its staff less than its competitors.
3. The majority of companies have paid all of the national wage increases to date and have increased their basic rates over and above the cost of living increases. This Company has failed to respond to this development and, consequently, its rates are out of line with others in the retail trade.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1.The Company has applied in full the increases due under all of the national pay agreements. The Union’s claim is cost increasing and is, therefore, precluded under the terms of the Programme for Prosperity and Fairness (PPF).
2. The Company is a speciality childrenswear retailer, with no other diversification of products, and is not comparable to the companies cited by the Union.
3. The Company’s current competitive position makes it inappropriate to consider wage increases outside the terms of the PPF. Wages costs have increased, while sales have decreased. The wage to sale ratio is up 13.1% for the year to date.
4. The Company’s terms and conditions of employment are competitive. They include service leave of an additional one week’s holiday for staff with 5 years’ service, a sick pay scheme, 25% staff discount, a bonus scheme for its top three performing stores every month and flexibility to take additional time off during school holidays.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court notes that the Company perceived a need for an adjustment to the rates of pay and, consequently, introduced a new pay structure from April, 2002. The Court is of the view that a further adjustment in the rates of pay is appropriate, therefore, the Court recommends that the parties should meet to discuss and agree this matter. However, the Court does not accept that the comparators set out in the Union's submission are appropriate in this case.
The Court considers that the Company's service related leave arrangements are an appropriate means of recognising long service in this company and, accordingly, rejects the claim for a service increment.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
9th September, 2002______________________
D.G.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Dympna Greene, Court Secretary.