FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : TESCO IRELAND LIMITED - AND - INDEPENDENT WORKERS UNION (IWU) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr McGee Employer Member: Ms Doyle Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Wage rounds and Tesco.
BACKGROUND:
2. The five Butchers involved in this dispute are employed by Tesco Ireland Limited at their supermarket stores in Wilton and Douglas in Cork. Historically Cork Operative Butchers Society (COBS is a branch of IWU) and Cork Master Butchers Association (CMBA represents the Employers) have negotiated pay rates and conditions which were applied to the Cork region's meat retailers only. When the first supermarket that sold fresh meat opened in Cork they too applied the agreed rate. Overtime the agreement could not keep pace with other trades, to some extent due to a reduction in sales as a result of a number of factors including foot and mouth disease and the public perception of the safety of meat products and it was not until July 2006 before a catch up agreement was finally reached between the two parties. Tesco have decided not to abide by this agreement thus precipitating a dispute.
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 5th January, 2009 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990.
A Labour Court hearing took place on the 5th June, 2009.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Trade Union Act 1941 licensed the two bodies CMBA and COBS to negotiate on rates of pay and determine conditions of employment for Butchers in the Cork region.
2. The Butchers have a right to try and catch up with other trades. Unless this problem is addressed the trade will fail to attract new apprentices.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The issue relates to a pay claim that is outside of the National Wage Agreements and is therefore cost increasing under the provisions of "Towards 2016" and are precluded.
2. If this claim was successful it could undermine the approach the Company have applied to National Wage Agreements and could have huge national and retrospective implications across its business interests.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has considered the submissions of the parties.
The Court notes that the Company has abided by the terms, both of "Towards 2016" and by the terms of the National Wage Agreements since 1987. This, in the view of the Court, is the appropriate means of adjusting wage rates for this Company. The claim is a cost-increasing one and is clearly outside the terms of that agreement.
The Court does not, therefore, recommend concession of the claim.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Raymond McGee
2nd July, 2009______________________
JFDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to John Foley, Court Secretary.