FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : DLEN TRADING AS SUPER VALU (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - MANDATE DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Grier Worker Member: Mr Nash |
1. Introduction of 6 Point pay scale, Christmas Bonus and Sick Pay Scheme.
BACKGROUND:
2. The SuperValu/Dlen store at Watchhouse Cross was established in November 2004 as an independent start-up business under franchise from SuperValu. The store is located in Moyross in Limerick City and is providing local employment and a service to a community that was not served by a supermarket up to the time the store was established. The store currently employs 30 staff in total of which approximately 20 are members of the Union.
Following on the Workers joining the Union a pay claim was submitted in October 2005 for the introduction of a six point pay scale, a Christmas bonus of two weeks wages, a grievance and disciplinary procedure and a sick pay scheme comparable with the Limerick Distributive Trades Sick Pay Agreement.
Talks took place between the Union and the Company in January 2006 and the Company subsequently introduced a 10% discount for staff at point of sale on one transaction per week. The Company sought a delay of six months before addressing the Unions claim.
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 14th July,2006, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 14th March 2007.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Union members in this employment are confined to the basic pay and conditions of employment in the Employment Regulation Order (ERO) for the Retail Grocery Trade. They want their pay and conditions to be determined by a collective agreement which would be comparable with other organised employments in the retail grocery sector.
2. The Union maintain that the vast majority of organised employments in the retail sector give a Christmas Bonus of at least one weeks gross wages to staff as a result of negotiated agreements.
3. The Sick Pay Scheme in the ERO for the retail grocery trade has a waiting period of two years continuous service for qualification. This scheme is not satisfactory because the entitlements are less than sick pay agreements in the retail trade.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1.The Company accepts that its business falls within the ambit of the ERO for the Retail Grocery Trade and contends that its rates of pay are completely in line with the statutory requirements set out therein.
2. Improvements on the terms of the ERO would have adverse implications for the operating costs of the business and would put it at a competitive disadvantage in an environment where it is already struggling to maintain viability.
3. The Company is meeting its obligations with regard to sick pay under the ERO in respect of paying three week's basic pay to qualifying full-time employees and on a pro-rata basis to qualifying part-time employees.
4. The Company operates in an extremely competitive trading environmentwhere it competes with well-established multi-national supermarkets. Since it commenced trading the Company has been losing money and is not in a position to countenance the claims put forward by the Union.
RECOMMENDATION:
The issue before the Court concerns the Union’s claims for :
-the introduction of a 6 point pay scale,
-the introduction of a Christmas Bonus,
-an agreed Sick Pay Scheme.
It was agreed between the parties that the Union’s additional claim for Grievance and Disciplinary Procedures was not before the Court on the basis that the Company accepted that its procedures would be in compliance with Code of Practice on Grievance and Disciplinary Procedures S.I. No 146 of 2000.
Having considered the views of the parties expressed in their oral and written submissions, the Court is mindful of the terms and conditions of employment applying in similar establishments elsewhere, however, due to the Company’s current trading position, the Court does not recommend in favour of the Union’s claims at this point in time.
The Court recommends that the parties should review the situation at the beginning of October 2007, with a view to addressing the Union’s claims in light of the Company’s trading position at that time.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
4th April, 2007______________________
MG.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Madelon Geoghegan, Court Secretary.