FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : BERNIE'S SUPERVALU (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - MANDATE DIVISION : Chairman: Mr McGee Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Mr Nash |
1. Pay Increase
BACKGROUND:
2. The Union's claim before the Court is for a pay increase outside the terms of Towards 2016 for employees of the Company concerned. The Company rejects the claim. When the Sustaining Progress national agreement expired in the Company, the Union submitted a claim for an increase in the hourly rate by €1.00. The Company responded to this claim by indicating that it would be implementing the terms of the new national pay agreement concluded between the social partners. The Union responded by making it clear that they wished to negotiate a pay agreement independent of any reached at national level. The Company reiterated its position and contends that the Union's claim is cost increasing and precluded by the terms of Towards 2016.
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 14th November, 2006 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 17th October, 2007.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1 The sector in which the Company operates has fallen 10% behind in terms of employees incomes than those of other sectors of the economy. This happened during a period of huge profit growth. Consequently, the Union decided not to participate in the negotiations for the new national agreement. The claim for an increase of €1.00 per hour was served on the Company on the expiry of Sustaining Progress.
2 The current pay scale in the Company falls well behind the negotiated rates in other comparable Companies in the region. It is also the case that the top point of the scale is considerably less than the equivalent top point applicable in comparable companies.
3 A substantial number of staff at the Company have a long service history. The top rate of pay is 9% less than the average top rate of comparable companies.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1 The claim before the Court is cost increasing and is precluded under the terms of Towards 2016. This Agreement was concluded by the Social Partners including the Irish Congress of Trade Unions of which the Union is a member.
2 The Company applies the terms of national wage agreements and are ahead of most companies in its sector on the dates on which the agreement is paid. When payments under Towards 2016 were made, the Company received no objection from its employees or indeed the Union to receiving payments under the Agreement.
3 This claim forms part of a nationwide claim by the Union on Companies in this sector. If this claim was conceded it would have serious implications for Towards 2016 and the integrity of Social Partnership.
RECOMMENDATION:
The employer has paid the increases due under the pay provisions of "Towards 2016". Given that "Towards 2016" is the national social partnership agreement, subscribed to by both IBEC and ICTU (of which MANDATE is a member union), the claim made by the Union comes under Clause 1.4 of those pay provisions as a "further cost - increasing claim"
Concession of the claim is therefore precluded and accordingly, the Court does not recommend that it be conceded.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Raymond McGee
13th November, 2007______________________
DNDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to David P Noonan, Court Secretary.