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 : CAROLANS LONDIS SUPERMARKET (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Doherty 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. Genevey Limited, trading as Carolan's Londis Navan is a family run business. The Company employs twenty full time staff and thirty three part time staff. The Union wrote to the Advisory Service of the Labour Relations Commission seeking assistance in accordance with the Enhanced Code of Practice on Voluntary Dispute Resolution (S.I. No. 76 of 2004). The issues of concern were:
- Procedural Agreement
- Hourly rate of pay and pay related matters
- Application of national agreements
- Health & Safety matters
- Introduction of Sick Pay Scheme
- Deduction of Union contribution at source (DAS)
- Hours of work.
- An invitation to participate in the Advisory Service process was not initially accepted by the Company, but later accepted. The first meeting took place on 24th November, 2005, a second meeting took place on the 12th December, 2005 and a third meeting took place on 17th January, 2006. The matters still outstanding at this stage are: Hourly rate of pay and pay related matters; application of national agreements; health & safety matters and deduction of Union contributions at source (DAS).
As matters could not progress further the dispute was then referred to the Labour Court by the Union on the 15th March, 2006 in accordance with Section 2(1) Industrial Relations (Amendment) Act, 2001, as amended by the Industrial Relations (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 2004. A Court hearing was held on the 18th April, 2006
UNION'S ARGUMENTS
3.1Pay
The Union contest that the current rate of pay does not meet the legal minimum entitlements laid down for the industry and that the Company should be paying its employees more than the legal minimum for the following reasons:
- The Company is not a small corner shop, it employs up to 100 employees for most of the year;
- The store is as large as the two other competitors in the town (Navan);
- These two competitors pay their employees substantial more than the legal minimum entitlement.
2.The Union has sought a schedule for training employees on Manual Handling and Hassap Hygiene. To date no training has been received.
Deduction of Union Contribution (D.A.S.)
3.The Union is seeking arrangements from the Company to facilitate its employees with deduction of union contribution at source.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS
4.1Pay
The Company's rates of pay are exactly in line with the rates of pay sent out under the Retail Grocery and Allied Trades Rates JLC. Rates of pay were increased on 16th March, 2006 in line with JLC.
2. The Company's rates of pay are also in line with comparator grocery stores located in Navan.
Health & Safety
3. The Company proposes to create a position of manual handling and lifting instructor for the store. This position would be advertised internally in the store and all employees would have the opportunity to apply for the position.
Deduction of Union Contribution (D.A.S.)
4. The Company is not prepared to facilitate the deduction of union membership fees at source through its payroll as it does not wish to know what members of staff are members of the Union.
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) of the Act are fulfilled in this case and that the dispute is properly before the Court for investigation and recommendation.
Pay.
The Union submitted a claim for an increase of €1 per hour on all existing rates and for an increase of €2 per hour for management grades. The Court was not provided with any information from which it could be deduced that this claim is justified by reference to negotiated rates in comparable employments. Consequently, there is no basis upon which the Court could recommend that this claim be conceded.
Following the hearing the Union submitted additional information and made reference to previous Recommendation LCR No. 18535. The Union indicated that it wished to modify its claim in line with that Recommendation. The correspondence was copied to the Employer who also commented by letter to the Court.
Effectively the Union has now withdrawn its original claim and substituted a new claim. That claim was not before the Court nor was it the subject of engagement between the parties under the Enhanced Code of Practice on Voluntary Dispute Resolution (S.I. No. 76 of 2004).
The Court recommends that the parties should resume their engagement under the Code of Practice for the purpose of dealing with the new claim.
Other Issues.
The Union raised a number of other issues, namely overtime rates, Sunday working as part of the roster, unsocial hours as part of the roster and the appointment of a health and safety representative. The Employer contends that the matters claimed by the Union are already in place. The Union denies this.
The Court recommends that in the resumed engagement recommended above, the parties should clarify the factual position with regard to these matters.
Deduction at source.
The Court does not recommend concession of this aspect of the Union's claim.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
19th_May, 2006______________________
JBChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Jackie Byrne, Court Secretary.