FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : SUPERQUINN BRAY (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - MANDATE BFAWU & SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr McGee Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Withdrawal of staff car parking facilities.
BACKGROUND:
2. Superquinn is one of the major players in the Irish Retail Grocery Supermarket business. Since the opening of the Bray store it was an established practice that members of staff were provided with free car parking facilities.
In February 2006 the staff in the Superquinn store in Bray were informed by the Store Manager that their car parking facilities were to be withdrawn forthwith. Mandate wrote to the Manager on 20th February 2006 seeking an immediate meeting to discuss the matter. No meeting took place and the Company responded by letter stating that they required to establish the current situation with the property division before any meeting could be arranged.
Historically, staff had free car parking at a third party premises at the rear of the store. Two years ago those premises were sold. The car parking area at the store itself has been leased to a private car park operator and parking charges now apply to all users. This had resulted in free car parking no longer being available to the staff at the store.
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 3rd January, 2008, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 19th March, 2008.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Unions believe that the Company have an obligation to provide car parking facilities for the staff members in question as they have acquired this right through practice.
2. The Unions also argue that the existence of the practice of free car parking facilities has become so rooted and institutionalised that it has created an implied term in the contracts of employment for the relevant staff.
3. The Unions maintain that in the past the Company have provided and the staff have accepted car parking facilities which have not been directly adjacent to the store and there is no reason why a satisfactory solution could not be found within this context going forward.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1.The Company has always maintained that car parking facilities are primarily for customers of the store.
2. Car parking has never been guaranteed for any employee of the Company. There is no mention in pre-1991 contracts that car parking is a benefit or a term of employment with the Company.
3. In the case of Bray, it is clear from the circumstances that there were never any guaranteed colleague parking facilities provided. Free on-street parking was available until 1997 and with only 40 customer car park spaces colleagues never parked on site.
RECOMMENDATION:
Having considered the submissions, both oral and written, of the parties, the Court is not of the view that there was a contractual term, whether actual or implied, granting car parking for staff in the Bray store. The Court accordingly, does not recommend concession of this claim. The Court also notes that the matter of car parking is one to be dealt with on a store-by-store basis and that this case refers to the Bray store only.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Raymond McGee
21st April, 2008______________________
MG.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Madelon Geoghegan, Court Secretary.