FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : PRIMARK STORES LIMITED TRADING AS PENNEYS (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - MANDATE DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Mr Nash |
1. Improvements in Pay and Conditions
BACKGROUND:
2. This case concerns a dispute between MANDATE Trade Union and Penneys in relation to rates of pay, additional annual leave, early payment of future wage increases and the abolition of the under 18 pay rate of workers employed by the Company.
The Union is seeking an increase of €1 per hour for all members over and above National Wage increases on the basis that the retail sector is extremely profitable yet workers continue to be poorly paid. The Union is also seeking an abolition of the under 18 rate of pay as has been agreed with other employers in the retail sector and a basic increase in annual leave entitlements. It further contends that early application of future wage increases is appropriate to address anomalies in pay levels. Management rejects the claim on the basis that they are cost-increasing and unsustainable as well as being precluded under National Wage Agreements.
The dispute was not 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 matter was referred to the Labour Court on 26th November 2007 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on 2nd April, 2008.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3 1 The Union's claim is fair and reasonable in the circumstances. The retail sector continues to thrive with high profit levels yet the workers are poorly paid.
2 Almost all other retail sector employers have abolished the under 18 rate of pay through agreement with the Union.
3 Workers are in receipt of minimum annual leave entitlements. Given the profitability of the sector and the contribution of the workforce, seeking additional annual leave entitlements is an appropriate claim.
4 Early application of national wage increases in the future will assist in addressing previous late application of pay increases in the retail sector.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4 1 The claims are cost-increasing and precluded under the terms of successive National Wage Agreements.
2 The Company is unable to sustain the costs of the Union's claim.
3 The Company has, and will continue to, apply the terms of National Wage Agreements.
RECOMMENDATION:
It is accepted that each of the Union’s claims are above the terms provided for by the pay agreement associated with Towards 2016 and are cost-increasing.
The Company has relied upon the stabilisation provisions of that Agreement in support of its rejection of the claim.
The policy of the Court is to uphold the provisions of Social Partnership Agreements and to apply the terms of such Agreements in its Recommendations.
Accordingly the Court cannot recommend concession of the Union’s claims.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
22nd April 2008______________________
AHChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Andrew Heavey, Court Secretary.