FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 S2(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS (AMENDMENT) ACT, 2001, AS AMENDED BY THE INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS(MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) ACT, 2004 PARTIES : BUCKLEY'S SUPERVALU - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Grier Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Referral from the Labour Relations Commission under the Industrial Relations (Amendment) Act, 2001 as amended by the Industrial Relations (Miscellaneous Provision) Act, 2004.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company run a number of successful retail grocery outlets in Mullingar, Moate and Birr. In May 2003 the outlet in Birr was taken over as a going concern and is now trading as Buckley's SuperValu. Prior to the takeover the employees had joined the Union. The Union wrote to the current employer on several occasions and in February 2004 sought a meeting to discuss some issues of concern to the employees. Management of the company refused to engage with the Union.
The Union referred the dispute to the Advisory Service of the Labour Relations Commission and both sides met on the 15th July, 2004. A number of issues were resolved and the outstanding issues were referred to the Labour Court in accordance with Section 2(1) of the Industrial Relations (Amendment) Act, 2001, as amended by the Industrial Relations (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 2004, on the 19th July, 2004.
The issues before the Court concern (1) Pay and bonus, (2) Grievance and Disciplinary Procedures.
A Labour Court hearing took place on the 24th August, 2004.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
Pay and bonus
3. 1. The attendance bonus was paid to staff annually, on an agreed formula, by the previous employer. The Union have sought the continuation of this bonus. The Company has now agreed to this and is in the process of paying the bonus to staff.
2. Union members have not received an increase since 13th December, 2002. The Union are seeking the payment of the last phase of the Programme for Prosperity and Fairness from 16th March 2004, and the appropriate Joint Labour Committee, Employment Regulation Order (ERO) overtime rates.
Disciplinary and Grievance Procedures
3. The Union are seeking to have the current Disciplinary and Grievance Procedure, as outlined in the Employee Handbook, clarified to be consistent with the general provisions of the Code of Practice on Grievance and Disciplinary Procedures (S.I. 146 of 2000).
4. The Union is also seeking the acceptance by the Company of trade union representation in processing individual grievance and disciplinary matters, where an employee wishes to avail of such representation.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
Pay and bonus
4. 1.The Company is in the process of paying out the attendance bonus in line with the procedure that existed under the previous employer.
2. The Company is paying the ERO rates to those employees who are covered by the Employment Regulation Order. All other employees receive a cost of living increase on an annual basis.
3. The Company was not aware of the non-payment of increases under the national wage agreements at the time of takeover. It is committed to rectifying this matter within four weeks.
Disciplinary and Grievance Procedures
4. The Company does not recognise the Union for collective bargaining purposes. It does recognise the right of the individual employee to be properly represented in any disciplinary matters.
5. The Company accepts the principles laid down in the relevant codes of practice governing the areas of disciplinary and grievance matters.
RECOMMENDATION:
This dispute was referred to the Court pursuant to Section 2(1) of the Industrial Relations (Amendment) Act 2000, as amended by the Industrial Relations (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2004.
The Union referred a dispute involving a range of issues to the Advisory Service of the Labour Relations Commission pursuant to the Enhances Code of Practice on Voluntary Dispute Resolution (S.I. 76 of 2004). In the course of the process provided for by the Code of Practice a number of those issues were resolved between the parties. Agreement was not reached on three issues, namely:
1. Pay.
2. Attendance Bonus.
3. Grievance and Disciplinary Procedures.
The Labour Relations Commission concluded that no further effort on its part would advance the resolution of the dispute on those issues and the Court received a report from the Commission to that effect.
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 has taken careful account of the submissions of the parties in their written and oral presentations. It has also had regard to the entirety of labour relations practices engaged in by the employer, as they were outlined to the Court in the course of the investigation. The Court has also taken account of relevant Codes of Practice made pursuant to Section 42 of the Industrial Relations Act 1990, as it is required to do by Section 42(4) of that Act.
The Court recommends as follows:
Pay
The Court notes that there is no standardised pay review arrangement currently in place. The substance of the approach proposed by the employer is that some employees (those on ERO rates) would, in effect, receive increases equivalent to those provided for by National Agreements. In the case of those on rates higher than those prescribed by the ERO, it is proposed to pay a lesser amount from an earlier date.
In the Courts view a standard arrangement should apply to all staff. Accordingly, the Court recommends that increases corresponding to those prescribed by National Agreements should apply from the date on which they apply generally in the retail grocery sector. On this basis the Court recommends that the Union's claim for the actual basic pay of all staff be increased by 4% with effect from 16th March, 2004, be conceded.
Bonus
The Employertold the Court that they were unaware of the existence of the attendance bonus scheme at issue. Since becoming aware of the scheme they accept that they are required by the European Communities (Protection of Employees on Transfer of Undertakings) Regulations 2003 to continue to apply the scheme. The Company is making arrangements to discharge outstanding monies due to staff under this scheme . An undertaking was given to have the amounts outstanding discharged within one week from the date of hearing.
The Court recommends that the employer proceed in accordance with the undertaking given to the Court.
Grievance Procedure and Disciplinary
The employer should put in place a disciplinary and grievance procedure which conforms to the general provisions of the Code of Practice on Grievance and Disciplinary Procedures (S.I. 146 of 2000). Consistent with the Code, the Company's procedure should provide for trade union representation in processing individual grievances and disciplinary matters, where an employee wishes to avail of such representation. The procedure should also provide for the full utilisation of the normal dispute resolution machinery of the State, including the reference of disputes to conciliation, the Rights Commissioner service and the Court, as appropriate.
This procedure should be put in place within one month from the date of this recommendation. The Union should be consulted in relation to its content. If there is any dispute in relation to the compatibility of the proposed procedures with the Code of Practice, the question may be processed under Section 43 of the Industrial Relations Act 1990.
Implementation
Save where it is otherwise provided these recommendations should be implemented within one month from the date on which they are issued.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
30th August, 2004______________________
MG.Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Madelon Geoghegan, Court Secretary.