FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : O' TOOLES SUPERVALU & FASHIONS, TUAM (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - MANDATE, GALWAY DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Ms Doyle Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Interpretation of collective agreement regarding pay scales/ wage entitlements
BACKGROUND:
2. The issue before the Court concerns a dispute between the parties regarding the interpretation of an agreement reached in 2001. The Union contends that the agreed rate of pay applies to all staff employed throughout the year, including those employed on a part-time basis who are in full-time education . Temporary seasonal staff should be paid the Joint Labour Committee (JLC) rates. The Company's position is that it has always interpreted "employees" in the agreement as part-time and full-time workers not in full-time education. It contends that part-time employees in full-time education are paid under the terms of the JLC, which is the industry norm.
The matter 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 could not be reached the matter was referred to the Labour Court on the 5th November, 2008, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 1st December, 2010.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1 The Union cannot condone the practice of discriminating against workers because they are in full-time education.Workers should be encouraged to continue in education and not be financially penalised.
2 The pay rates negotiated were for permanent staff both full-time and part-time. The Union conceded that the Company can hire temporary seasonal employees on the JLC rates of pay for busy periods.
3 The Union is seeking that the workers concerned are put on the Union negotiated pay scale immediately.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1 Student employees are covered by the Joint Labour Committee (JLC). The Company has always met its legal requirements under the JLC.
2 The current rate paid to students is almost universally applied due to the fact that people in full-time education are only available at certain times during the week.
3 In the current economic climate any cost increasing claims could impact on competitiveness and jobs within the Company.
RECOMMENDATION:
The matter before the Court concerns a dispute between the parties over the interpretation of a Comprehensive Company/Union Agreement and specifically the pay scales, which should apply to part time workers who are also students.
The Union contends that once they are not casual workers, i.e. taken on in employment to cover seasonal work, students should be classified as permanent workers, i.e. paid a pay scale negotiated between the parties which is higher than the JLC rates.
The Company contends that the Agreement reached with the Union, which originated back in 2001 provided that students would be paid in accordance with the JLC rates applicable for the Retail Grocery Trade.
A letter dated 10th October 2001, which was annexed to the Comprehensive Agreement states:
- “The following is the position with regard to pay element for permanent staff:
[rates quoted]
These rates will apply regardless of age. The current rates, which apply to students, i.e. casual workers, will remain as heretofore.”
The Company submitted to the Court that it students are paid a separate rate than that paid to permanent staff due to their lack of flexibility in terms of the hours of work for which they can be available for, which puts them in a special category,
The Court is not in a position to interpret the Agreement as the parties have not been able to clarify what the position was prior to 2001, the Comprehensive Agreement does not deal with this point, and the letter quoted does not advance the argument put forward by either party.
Due to the lack of clarity the Court is of the view that the answer does not lie in an interpretation of the Agreement or the letter annexed to the Agreement, accordingly the Court recommends that the parties should meet to discuss the matter of the appropriate rates of pay to pay to workers who because of education commitments offer less flexibility to the employer.
In the event that the parties cannot resolve the issue, the claim may be referred back to the Court for a definitive recommendation.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
17th December, 2010______________________
DNDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to David P Noonan, Court Secretary.