FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : BROWN THOMAS (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - MANDATE DIVISION : Chairman: Mr McGee Employer Member: Mr Grier Worker Member: Mr Nash |
1. Increase of €1 per hour on all Rates of Pay; Additional Two Days Leave on Basic Annual Holiday Entitlement; Advancement of Wage Round Dates, & Introduction of Christmas bonus.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company operates stores in Cork, Galway, Limerick and Dublin. The Union is seeking an increase in the hourly pay rate and annual leave entitlement of its members employed in the Company. The Union is also seeking the earlier introduction of wage increases due under "Towards 2016" and the introduction of a Christmas bonus. The Company refuses to concede these claims and considers them to be cost increasing and contrary to the terms of "Towards 2016".
This 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 30th November 2007 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 18th March 2008, the earliest date suitable to the parties.
3. 1. The Company is a highly-profitable operator in the highly-profitable retail sector. The income of workers in the retail sector has not increased in line with the increase in profits in this sector.
2. Pay rates in the Company are not exceptional when compared to norms in the retail sector. The existance of a staff commission scheme is not an acceptable substitute for a Christmas bonus; many competing operators in the retail sector have both a staff commission scheme and a Christmas bonus.
3.Existing annual leave entitlements in the Company do not reflect the general practice in the retail sector. This is particularly noteworthy as the Company is highly-profitable.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. Rates of pay or terms and conditions of employment are not below retail sector norms.
2. The Union's claims are cost increasing and, therefore, debarred by the terms of "Towards 2016".
3.The Company would not have a minimal turnover of staff if its rates of pay or terms and conditions of eemployment were not competitive.
RECOMMENDATION:
The claims put before the Court by the Trade Union are cost-increasing under the provisions of "Towards 2016". No offers have been made by the Company in respect of any claims and the Court cannot therefore recommend concession of any of the claims at this time.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Raymond McGee
20th March, 2008.______________________
JMcC.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Jonathan McCabe, Court Secretary.