FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2001 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : MULLANEY BROTHERS (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - MANDATE DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Grier Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. (a) Rosters (b) Increase in bonus.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company operates a drapery and travel agency business from the same premises in Sligo. The rates of pay are the same for both departments, but rostering arrangements differ. The Company operates a five day trading policy, but adopts a six day trading policy during busy periods, such as Christmas time. A bonus payment is paid to workers who do not have a two day weekend off as a result of six day trading. As Sunday is not counted, it means not having either a Saturday or a Monday off during this time.
The dispute before the Court concerns a claim by the Union on behalf of it's members working in the drapery business, who are seeking the same roster systems and financial incentive as is experienced by their colleagues in the travel business.
The Company rejects the claim.
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 18th June, 2003, in accordance with Section 26(1) if the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 23rd October 2003, the earliest date suitable to the parties.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. Both departments are in the retail business and work off the same premises, and should attract the same roster system. During busy periods staff normally working in travel, have been required to help in drapery.
2. The Company applies separate roster systems to its two sets of staff who are requested to work for the same reasons during Summer and Christmas busy periods.
3. The financial reward for working the roster system has not increased in a number of years, thus decreasing the incentive for employees to abide by them.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. Both the drapery and travel business are two separate and distinct trading entities, with terms and conditions for employees relating to each business individually.
- 2. No interchangeability exists between the Companies.
3. Compensatory payment was introduced and increased until 1998,when, in order to protect the five and six day trading agreement, no further increases were made.
RECOMMENDATION:
Having given careful consideration to all aspects of these claims, the Court is of the view that the principle of parity between the Drapery Department and the Travel Department is conceded in the offer made by the industrial relation officer at conciliation on 20th November 2002 with exception of the timing of the day off in lieu. The Court accepts that the two businesses are separate and distinct and therefore the timing of the day off in lieu must apply in line with the business needs of the Company.
The Court accepts as reasonable the Company's method of paying compensation for the loss of a two-day weekend (i.e for those who work both Monday and Saturday in the one week).
The Court recommends that the 20th November 2002 proposal is reasonable and should be accepted by both parties in settlement of this dispute.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
13th November 2003______________________
JO'CDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Jo O'Connor, Court Secretary.