FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : TESCO IRELAND - AND - MANDATE SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Doherty Worker Member: Mr Nash |
1. Reduction In Hours
BACKGROUND:
2. The case involves a claim by the Unions on behalf of its members in relation to reductions in hours of work made by the Company. In 2006 the Company and Unions reached an Agreement surrounding the terms and conditions of employment which included weekly hours of work being divided into four seperate bands of contracted hours. There were no apparent issues with the terms of the Agreement until 2009 when, at that time, the company had reduced hours of work in a number of its stores. The Unions contend that in its doing so, the Company did not act in accordance with the terms of the Agreement. The Company denies this.
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 2nd March 2010, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 17th June 2010.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
1. The Agreement was understood to put in place a procedure whereby cuts in hours would be carried out in line with with had already been in existence in stores where genuine needs to reduce working hours had been identified and carried out.
2. In this case the Company refused to discuss all alternative options including voluntary redundancy, as per what had previously taken place in stores that were experiencing major trading difficulties.
3. Despite the economic downturn the Company remains highly profitable therefore reductions in working hours are a means of both sustaining and growing profits.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
1. The Company is experiencing economic difficulty as a result of the downturn as well as competition from other retailers. In this situation there was no suitable alternative option other than to reduce working hours below the bands in stores where this was required.
2. The Unions, in arguing that redundancies should be made available before any reduction in hours below the bands are carried out, are recognising that the Company is entitled to reduce hours if and when the need arises. As a result, the Company is not in breach of the Agreement in reducing hours of work where needed.
RECOMMENDATION:
This dispute concerns the interpretation of two Agreements relating to the hours of work of part-time employees. The Unions contend that the Company contravened the Agreements in reducing the hours of those to whom they apply. For its part the Company contends that it followed the terms of the Agreement strictly and acted in reducing the hours of the affected staff in line with the exigencies of its business.
In the Court’s view nothing constructive could be obtained at this stage in seeking to apportion blame for events which are now past. Rather, as the Court sees it, the parties should concentrate on identifying a basis upon which a similar dispute can be avoided in future. In that regard it appears that the underlying dispute arose because the parties have different understandings concerning when and how their Agreement should be applied.
It is clear to the Court from a reading of the agreements as a whole that the hours of part-time workers should only be reduced below their established bands as an extreme measure and where there is an absence of viable alternatives. This seems clear from the wording of Step 5 of the Agreement.
However, the Agreements as currently drafted do not define with any degree of detail the other options which should be considered as an alternative to reducing hours where the circumstances in which this provision of the agreement can be invoked arise. For the avoidance of disputes in the future on greater clarity should be introduced on this point.
In the Court view the parties should enter into further negotiation in relation to this part of the agreement so as to clarify and specify what further options should be considered before a reduction in hours below the relevant bands is resorted to. These negotiations should continue for a period not exceeding three months. If agreement is not reached the matter may be referred back to the Court for a definitive recommendation.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
24th June 2010______________________
SCChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Sharon Cahill, Court Secretary.