FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : DEBENHAMS (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - MANDATE DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Doherty Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Trading Hours / Working Patterns.
BACKGROUND:
2. The dispute concerns approximately two hundred workers who are employed by the Company at its Jervis Street store. The Union and the Company negotiated a National Collective Agreement in 1998 and in April, 2004 agreement was reached on flexibility, in return for a Long Service Increment and Christmas Bonus. In April, 2005, the Company advised the Union that it wished to extend its trading hours, due to increased competition. The Union claimed that workers have already given significant flexibility under existing agreements and rejected the Company proposal. The dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commission. At Conciliation a proposal was negotiated which involved compromises being made by both parties who recommended it for acceptance. However, it was rejected following a ballot of the workforce. The dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 27th October, 2005, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Court hearing was held on the 2nd December, 2005.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Union has concluded agreements with the Company which already gives substantial measures of flexibility which also provide that employees must work extended trading hours throughout the year. These provisions effectively mean that the Company has the right and the ability to trade extended hours over six months of the year.
2. The Company also enjoys considerable cost reductions over its main competitors.
3. In order to achieve agreement on the issue the Union is seeking that the LRC proposals would form the basis of settlement, with the following amendments:
(i) That the additional hours performed on a voluntary basis for all Sales Advisors and Security Staff, employed before 1st April, 2004,
(ii) In addition, the Union is seeking that the additional leave (i.e. one day per year), is incorporated into the annual leave entitlements of employees who work the revised arrangements.
(iii) A once-off payment equivalent to two weeks' salary for staff employed before April, 2004, who agreed to work the revised hours.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The principle of flexibility is enshrined in the Company Union Agreement of 1998. The Company must, at a minimum, trade the same hours as its main competitors. At present its trading hours are uncompetitive.
2. The Company has sought to minimise the impact of the extension of the hours on staff and has not sought to match competitors in their entirety.
3. The changes proposed are to protect the future of the store in an increasingly competitive market and are provided for in the 1998 National Agreement to which the Union is a signatory.
4. The Company has paid, and will continue to pay the terms of National Wage Agreements. The changes in opening hours are an example of the requirement for 'ongoing cooperation with change and continued adaption and flexibility' in accordance with Clause 1.8 of the Sustaining Progress agreement.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has considered the positions of both parties and is of the view that the proposals submitted by both parties for acceptance at the Labour Relations Commission are adequate, fair and reasonable in terms of the additional flexibility required for the proposed changes in trading hours envisaged by the Company. However, the Court recommends one amendment to those proposals, point number 10 should be substituted for the following:-
One extra day's annual leave should be granted to all staff employed on the date of formal acceptance of this proposal, thereby increasing the basic annual leave entitlement from 20 days to 21 days going forward. As with all annual leave requests the extra day will be subject to the normal terms and conditions as outlined in the Annual Leave Policy.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
7th December, 2005______________________
todDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Tom O'Dea, Court Secretary.