FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : NESTORS SUPERVALU (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - MANDATE DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Flood Employer Member: Mr Grier Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Pay rates, Sick pay; Time off in lieu for Good Friday.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company, which employes approximately seventy people, is a grocery retail business based in Galway. In 2003 agreement was reached on the recognition of the Union for collective bargaining purposes and negotiations commenced on terms and conditions of employment and rates of pay. The dispute before the Court concerns a claim by the Union relating to three unresolved issues,(a) increase in pay rates, (b)sick pay, and time off in lieu of working Good Friday.
- 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 24th March, 2004, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 19th May, 2004, the earliest date suitable to the parties.
3. 1. Pay Rates - The Company applies the lowest legal minimum permitted by the Grocery and Allied Trades Joint Labour Committee to the majority of staff. This is unacceptable to the Union and the implementation of new pay scales are sought.
2. Sick Pay - The Union is seeking the application of the Galway Sick Pay Scheme as follows:
4 months to 1 year service - 10 days paid sick leave
1 to 2 years service - 12 days
2 to 6 years service - 15 days
6 to 10 years service - 20 days
10 to 15 years service - 25 days
15 years plus - 30 days
3.Time off in lieu for Good Friday - The Company trades on Good Friday to which the Union has no objection, but they are seeking that working should be voluntary and attract an additional days paid leave to bring it into line with the norm in retail trade.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS
4. 1. The Company have entered into meaningful discussions with the Union with regard to the introduction of a comprehensive agreement and agreement has been reached on most of the issues.
2. The store is not profitable at the moment and continues to trade at a loss. All the claims submitted by the Union are cost increasing and any concession of these claims could jeopardise the jobs of the members.
3. The Company are and will continue to be compliant with the terms of the Retail Grocery and Allied Trades JLC.
RECOMMENDATION:
The parties have made progress on a number of issues in recent discussions. The Court notes that the Company has committed to addressing these claims given time, and has accepted that any concession on the Union's claim would commence from 29th September, 2003.
Taking into account the current trading position of the Company, the Court recommends that these claims be put on hold and raised again in April, 2005.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Finbarr Flood
31st May, 2004______________________
J O'C/MB.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Joanne O'Connor, Court Secretary.