FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2001 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : SODEXHO (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - MANDATE DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Grier Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Review of pay rate.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company currently holds the catering contracts for 19 Superquinn locations covering 120 employees nationwide. The Union's claim is for a review of the hourly rate of pay and the implementation of an incremental based pay scale similar to the Superquinn sales assistant hourly rate. Local discussions were unsuccessful and the dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commission. A conciliation conference was held at which the Company agreed to introduce one national rate of pay of € 7.80 per hour. However the Company rejected the introduction of an incremental scale on the basis of the cost involved. The dispute was referred to the Labour Court by the Labour Relations Commission on the 7th January, 2003, in accordance with Section 26 (1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Court hearing was held on the 24th April, 2003.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. There have been significant movements in wages in the retail sector over the past number of years. The rates offered by the Company have fallen behind market rates.
2. The Union seeks that, in line with other companies, the food services assistants should enter on the third point of the Superquinn pay scale and progress through the scale on the anniversary date on which they joined the Company. The Union also seeks the introduction of the seven and ten year service pay scale in line with the Superquinn rates.
3. The current differential that exists between the food services assistant and supervisors, assistant managers, and managers be maintained on the new pay scales.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company's employees are involved in the contract catering industry and not a retail organisation. There is no direct relationship between the claimants and employees in Superquinn with regards to type of work or grade of work carried out. The Company, unlike Superquinn, is not in a position to control the number or quantity of business it receives. The Company is restricted to the Superquinn employees and provides a service to that sector.
2. The Company does not operate in the public arena and, therefore, its costs and overheads must be strictly controlled.
3. The Company is prepared to improve its offer at conciliation as follows:
€8.03 per hour to Food Service Assistants
€10.19 per hour to Chef/Supervisors/2nd Chef w.e.f. 1st April, 2003.
This offer includes phase one of the Sustaining Progress Agreement.
4. The Company does not operate a service pay system or graded pay and does not intend to do so. There is a system of bonus schemes in operation and the Company is currently examining a "team" bonus scheme, which would operate in similar fashion. The Company is committed to introduce a service recognition scheme for long serving employees in the future as per Labour Court Recommendation 17362.
5. The claim is cost increasing and precluded under the terms of the Programme for Prosperity and Fairness/Sustaining Progress.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has considered the Union's claim for the introduction of an incremental scale of up to 10 years service, in line with that paid to Superquinn sales assistants for the Company's staff employed in Superquinn canteens and for entry to the scale at the third point of the scale.
The Court notes the Company's
- recent agreement to introduce a national rate of pay for the Company's food service assistants employed in different Superquinn canteens,
- Commitment to introduce a service recognition scheme for long serving employees in the future (see Labour Court Recommendation No:17,362),
- practice of rewarding employees by performance and commitment to examine the feasibility of introducing a "team" bonus scheme.
The Court is of the view that there is no justification in the claim for the application of rates of pay, which apply in the retail sector. The Court does not recommend concession of the claim as it is a cost-increasing claim and therefore, precluded by the terms of PPF/Sustaining Progress.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
7th May, 2003______________________
TOD/BRDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Tom O'Dea, Court Secretary.