FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2001 SECTION 2(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS (AMENDMENT) ACT, 2001 PARTIES : MOQUETTE LIMITED T/A DOYLES SUPERVALUE (REPRESENTED BY TOM SMYTH & ASSOCIATES - AND - MANDATE DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Doherty Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Referral under Section 2(1) of the Industrial Relations (Amendment) Act 2001.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company is a family owned retail grocery outlet employing approximately 51 workers including full time, part-time, and seasonal employees. In December, 2002 a number of workers in the employment joined the Union.The Union on their behalf submitted a claim to the Company in June, 2003 as follows:
1. An agreed pay scale
2. Agreed Christmas Bonus
3. An agreed sick pay scheme
4. An agreed Anti Bullying/Harassment Policy
The Company's response in February, 2003 was rejected by the Union which sought a joint referral to the Labour Relations Commission under the Code Of Practice on Voluntary Disputes Resolution. The Company was not agreeable to such a referral. On the 10th March, 2003 the Union referred the dispute to the Labour Court under Section 2(1) of the Industrial Relations (Amendment) Act, 2001. A Court hearing was held in Limerick on the 17th September, 2003.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3 1.Pay.The Company's rates and other conditions of employment are based on the Employment Regulation Order issued by the Grocery and Allied Trades Joint Labour Committee. These rates are substantially less than those applied in organised employments in the retail grocery sector and the members are dissatisfied with them, in particular long serving employees, and those in posts of responsibility. A similar outlet in the area operate a six point pay scale with long service payments after ten and fifteen years. The scale starts at €6.88 per hour and increases in five increments to €9.76 per hour. A Chargehand differential of 7.5% applies to posts of responsibility. The Union sees no reason why a similar pay scale cannot be introduced by the Company.
2Christmas Bonus.Most organised employments in the retail sector pay Christmas Bonus equating to one week's gross pay.
3.Sick Pay.The Union is seeking the introduction of a Sick Pay Scheme which would provide for four weeks paid sick leave and social welfare entitlements deducted. The Union also seeks that staff would benefit from the sick pay agreement after six months service.
4.Anti-Bullying Harassment Policy.The policy which the Company has in place has not been discussed with the Union and is not working as there have been instances of bullying, harassment and intimidation both before and since Union involvement. A policy cannot be considered 'agreed' unless it has the support of staff and their representatives.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1.Pay.The Company has always paid the appropriate JLC rates of pay, terms and conditions, including the 7.5% supervisor's allowance to workers with an entitlement to it. The JLC rates will shortly be increased by at least 3% provided for under the Sustaining Progress Agreement. Also the new minimum rate for young adults will be €7 ( an increase of 10% on its present level.) The Company cannot afford to pay the rates claimed by the Union which is using rates of much larger more profitable comparator companies. The Company has suffered a downturn in business and is under severe pressure because of the competition of the large retail outlets, some of whom are recently established in the locality.
2.Christmas Bonus.The Company pays its staff a Christmas Bonus and has done so for many years. If the Company's financial situation does not deteriorate further it will continue to pay the bonus.
3.Sick Pay.The Company cannot afford to introduce the sick pay scheme as claimed by the Union.
4.Anti-Bullying/Harassment Policy.The Company ha put in place the Bullying Policy as recommended by the Health and Safety Authority. It also has a Sexual Harassment Policy on display. However the Company had to engage the services of an outside consultant in 2002 to investigate a serious leakage in its profit margin. As a result a number of staff were dismissed. Once the episode was over the store returned to normal and previous relationships were re-established.
RECOMMENDATION:
This dispute was referred to the Court pursuant to Section 2 (1) of the Industrial Relations (Amendment) Act 2001 (the Act). The Court is satisfied that the conditions specified at Section 2(1)(a) to 2(1)(d) of the Act are fulfilled in this case and that the dispute is properly before the Court for investigation and recommendation.
The Court acknowledges that the procedures set out in the Code of Practice on Voluntary Dispute Resolution are, by definition, non-binding on parties. However, in the circumstances of this case the Court finds it particularly regrettable that the employer declined the opportunity to process the dispute through those procedures.
It appears to the Court that the purpose of the Industrial Relations (Amendment) Act 2001 is to provide a measure of protection to workers whose pay and conditions of employment cannot be determined by collective bargaining. It follows that the Court's approach in formulating recommendations under the Act should be to consider the likely pay levels and other conditions which might apply had collective bargaining taken place. In that context regard should be had to negotiated rates of pay and conditions applicable to similar categories of workers in analogous employments in which there is collective bargaining.
On the information before it the Court is satisfied that approximately 60% of employments within the retail grocery sector (excluding large multipliables) engage in collective bargaining and apply rates of pay and conditions of employment in excess of those prescribed by the ERO for the sector. Against that background it is not unreasonable to assume that if those associated with the present claims had their pay and conditions determined by collective bargaining, they would not be confined to the basic terms of the ERO.
The Union have submitted rates and conditions which they claim are typically applied in unionised employment in the locality. While this may be so there are other factors which should be taken into account They include the economic and commercial circumstances of the employment, current wage costs and the degree to which the increase in those costs will impact on the competitiveness of the enterprise.
Having regard to all of the circumstances the Court makes the following recommendations.
Pay:
A new pay scale should be introduced as follows:
| Point | Rates per Hour |
| 1 | €6.80 |
| 2 | €7.10 |
| 3 | €7.60 |
| 4 | €8.00 |
| 5 | €8.40 |
| 6 | €9.00 |
| C- Hand | + 7.5% |
Christmas Bonus:
It is noted that a Christmas Bonus is already paid to staff. The Court recommends that this should be formalised on a contractual basis and that a bonus equal to one weeks pay at the employee's normal weekly rate be paid at Christmas. Where hours vary (as may be the case with part-time employees) the normal weekly rate should be calculated by reference to the employees average earnings for the time worked in the preceding 13 weeks.
Sick Pay:
It is recommended that the service qualification for sick pay should be reduced to one year. The benefit should be increased to four weeks full pay in any 12 month period.
Bullying and Harassment Procedure:
The Company should provide the Union with a copy of its Bullying and Harassment procedures and should consider any representations which it may make in relation thereto.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
25th September 2003______________________
TOD/BRKevin Duffy
Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Tom O'Dea, Court Secretary.