FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : TESCO IRELAND - AND - MANDATE DIVISION : Chairman: Mr McGee Employer Member: Mr Doherty Worker Member: Mr Nash |
1. Transfer of Cafe and Canteen staff.
BACKGROUND:
2. Tesco Ireland operates 96 stores throughout the Republic of Ireland and employs approximately 12,000 staff. The Company has a comprehensive collective agreement with Mandate Trade Union which governs all their members' terms and conditions of employment.
The issue before the Court relates to the closure of the Canteen facilities in Tesco Clearwater and the transfer of the catering facilities to Campbell Catering.
The Company is willing to retain the catering staff on floor duties if they so wish and will honour all existing terms and conditions of employment. The Company have also offered the option of a voluntary redundancy package and the option of a voluntary redundancy package within 3 months of commencing a career break.
The Union have claimed that a €3,000 goodwill gesture, for which they claim there is precedent, should be paid to all affected staff in the Cafe/Canteen Department. The Company does not consider this claim to be warranted as the 8 staff concerned are employed on General Sales Assistant contract and therefore have a contractual obligation to work in other areas of the store.
The dispute could not be resolved at local level and was the subject of two conciliation conferences under the auspices of the Labour Relations Commission. As agreement was not reached, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 20th August, 2007, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 8th November, 2007.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Union maintains that the Company has in the past reached agreements with the Union to provide a range of options which include a "Retention Payment". Among the most significant of these agreements are "The Management Structures Agreement 2006" and the "Loss Prevention Officers (LPO) Agreement" March 2007.
2. The Company/Union Agreement dated January 2005 identifies the canteen staff as a stand alone category and therefore the Company's argument that staff have a liability to work on the sales floor and in the canteen does not stand up.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1.The Company maintains that the affected staff are on General Assistant contracts and as such these staff move between the Cafe/Canteen department and other departments within the store.This has been the custom and practice in the Tesco Clearwater stores.
2. The Company and Union have recently agreed the Tesco and Mandate 2006 Agreement which provides a new rate of pay, contracts and job descriptions for all General Assistants. Those working in the Cafe/Canteen department are covered by the terms of this General Sales Assistant contract.
3. To award the staff the Union claim of €3,000would be an unsustainable cost for the business and would have implications for any further business change implemented by the business and reduce the flexibility currently in practice in the business.
RECOMMENDATION:
As and from the 2006 Agreement, the General Assistant category has total transferability and for all recruited since then has universal application. The Union's members here were beneficiaries of this Agreement but were in employment prior to this agreement.
The Court therefore recommends in relation to canteen/cafe staff who did not transfer voluntarily to other areas of the store, and who were employed before the signing of the 2006 Agreement that they should receive the retention lump sum of €3,000, phased similarly to those already quoted to the Court and that this should not create a precedent for any other or further situations within the Company.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Raymond McGee
6th December. 2007______________________
MG.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Madelon Geoghegan, Court Secretary.