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 : DEERHAVEN LTD T/A THE CARD COMPANY - AND - MANDATE TRADE UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Grier Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Union application under The Industrial Relations (Amendment) Act, 2001, as amended by The Industrial Relations (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 2004.
BACKGROUND:
2. The dispute before the Court concerns a claim by the Union on behalf of it's members who are employed by Deerhaven, The Card Company, Crescent Shopping Centre, Dooradoyle, Limerick, for:
- a. An agreed pay scale with each individual member assimilated onto it
b. A Sick Pay Scheme as per the Limerick Trade Agreement.
c. A Christmas Bonus of two weeks wages.
d. A proper grievance and disputes procedure.
The Union contends that it submitted a claim to the Company in November 2004, for a comprehensive agreement on pay and other conditions of employment. The Company did not respond to the Unions claim but wrote to the members with proposals on the Sick Pay Scheme of eight days paid sick leave per year and a Christmas Bonus of one week's wages to be paid to members depending on the 'prevailing conditions'. The Company contends that the letter was written to members with an invitation to reply but none was received. The Unions further contends that the position outlined by the Company was not acceptable to the members.
The Union referred the dispute to the Labour Court for investigation under Section 2(1) of the Industrial Relations ( Amendment ) Act, 2001, as amended by the Industrial Relations (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 2004. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 3rd May 2005.
3. 1. The members are not satisfied with their rates of pay or with the manner in which wage increases, if any, are determined by the employer on an arbitrary basis. The members have no influence over the wage rate or the amount of any increase because they are denied any form of collective bargaining. The rates of pay in this employment are considerable less than the prevailing rate in the retail trade generally and the members do not get the benefit of the increases negotiated at national level.
2. The Company did propose a sick pay scheme of eight sick days per year following on the Union making it's claim. Such a sick pay scheme would not be in line with Sick Pay Schemes operating in the retail trade. The Limerick Distributive Trades Sick Pay Agreement, which provides for twenty four day's paid sick leave after six months service, has general application in most of the employments in Limerick. The application of this agreement is being sought for the members.
3. Most employments in the retail sector grant a Christmas Bonus of between one and four weeks gross wages. The Company did grant a bonus of one weeks wages in 2004. The members are seeking that the bonus arrangement be formalised with two weeks gross wages being paid to each member of members at Christmas time.
4.The Union claimed that the current internal procedures for the processingof issues relating to individual grievances and disciplinary matters are inadequate in that they do not provide for representation of employees by a trade union in appropriate cases. introduction of a proper grievance and disputes procedure is an important consideration for members. The introduction of an agreed grievance and disputes procedure in line with the Code of Practice (S.I No. 146 of 2000) is being sought.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company is a small unprofitable Company in a mature market. Rents in the Crescent Shopping Centre have risen significantly and this is a trend replicated in all centres to a greater or lesser degree and along with increases in service charges and rates makes it's trading position very difficult. Significant redundancies in late 2003 to reduce costs has been only partially successful.
2. The mnimum wage has been complied with, with a rise in wages of 7.28% in April 2005. The Company refuses to negotiate with the Union on the basis that it represents a minority of the members.
3. It is the Company's belief that a minority of stores have signed up to and are currently complying with the Limerick Trades Agreement. Some of the Company's major competitors are not signed up to the agreement.
4. The Union's claim is not based on commercial reality. As a Company in a difficult trading environment, it is not in a position to guarantee the payments demanded by the Union.
RECOMMENDATION:
This dispute was referred to the Court pursuant to Section 2(1) of the Industrial Relations (Amendment) Act, 2001 as amended by the Industrial Relations (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 2004 (the Acts). The Court is satisfied that the conditions specified at Section 2(1)(a) to 2(1)(d) of the Acts were fulfilled in this case and that the dispute was properly before the Court for investigation and recommendation.
In November 2004, the Union referred this dispute to the Advisory Service of the Labour Relations Commission pursuant to the Enhanced Code of Practice on Voluntary Dispute Resolution, (S.I. 76 of 2004). However the Company declined the invitation of the LRC to participate in the processes of the Code of Practice.
Whilst the Court recognises that the Code provided a voluntary process, in the circumstances of this case it is particularly regrettable that the parties did not have the advantage of some level of engagement, through those procedures, before the matter came before the Court.
The Court has taken careful account of the submissions of the parties in their written and oral presentations. Section 5(2) of the Act provides that a recommendation made by the Court shall not provide for arrangements for collective bargaining. Subject only to that restriction the Court is required to give its opinion on the matter under investigation and, where appropriate, its view as to the action, which should be taken, having regard to the terms and conditions of employment, in the employment concerned.
The claims under investigation in this referral relate to four full time staff employed at the Company’s premises in the Crescent Shopping Centre, Dooradoyle, these recommendations are not intended to have any wider scope.
The Court makes the following recommendations on the issues submitted :
Pay:
A new pay scale should be introduced as follows:
| Rates per Hour |
| €7.70 |
| 2 | €8.35 |
| 3 | €9.00 |
 | |
| Post of Responsibility | + 7.5% |
Sick Pay
The Court notes that a new sick pay scheme has recently been introduced which provides eight days sick pay per annum. The Court recommends that the present arrangements should be retained and reviewed in 12 months time.
Christmas Bonus:
The Court recommends that a Christmas Bonus should be paid equal to one weeks pay at the employee's normal weekly rate.
Disciplinary and Grievance ProceduresThe employer informed the Court that it intends to review its internal procedures having regard to the provisions of the Code of Practice on Grievance and Disciplinary Procedures (SI 146 of 2000). The Court recommends that the employer proceed accordingly. Any dispute concerning the compatibility of the revised internal procedures with the provisions of the Code of Practice should be processed through the procedures of Section 43 (1) of the Industrial Relations Act 1990.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
24th May 2005______________________
JO'CDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Joanne O'Connor, Court Secretary.