FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : TESCO IRELAND (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS CONFEDERATION) - AND - MANDATE DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Ms Doyle Worker Member: Mr Nash |
1. Grading.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company has taken the decision to alter its existing management structure to provide a new structure in keeping with a modern retailing business. It is currently moving to a "one management team" operational system that will consist of a Line Manger role (senior position) and a Team Leader role (more junior position). The new structure will involve the elimination of the Chargehand role.
The new structures as proposed by the Company mean the total abolition of the Chargehand role. There are two-hundred and six Chargehands across seventy stores within Tesco; one hundred and sixty-four Chargehands are represented by Mandate Trade Union in sixty-five out of the seventy stores.
Following extensive negotiations under the auspices of the Labour Relations Commission a set of proposals were put forward for recommendation by both unions and the Company. The proposals were balloted on and accepted by SIPTU members and implementation has therefore commenced with the Chargehands represented by SIPTU.
The issue before the Court concerns a dispute between Tesco Ireland and the Mandate Trade Union regarding the Company's decision to introduce a new management structure and the implications that decision has on the current Chargehand grade.
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 21st June 2010, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 24th June 2010.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Union maintains that in the new Management structure the skills and knowledge base of the Chargehands is not being recognised by Tesco in a number of Departments.
2. The current hours and patterns of work formed part of these Workers' terms and conditions of employment for a long number of years and have been agreed at local level with Store Managers as they suited the needs of the business within that store.
3. The Union maintains that the Chargehands should be given the choice of remaining in their current role and in their current department or moving to a Team Leader role as outlined in Option 2 of the Labour Relations Commission proposal.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company entered into extensive negotiations and ultimately agreed to a set of proposals on the basis that they would be accepted in full by each of the trade Unions.
2. The three options put forward offered each individual Chargehand an opportunity to minimise the impact of the changes to the management structure depending on what was most important to him/her.
3. An option that cannot be made available is where a Chargehand could remain on with no changes to pay, hours and working patterns, as a general assistant (red circled).
4. By agreeing to provide the options contained in the proposals, the Company has given Chargehands a means of addressing all of their concerns with the exception of creating a role that does not exist.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court believes that the proposals negotiated at the LRC provide a comprehensive range of options available to those displaced from the now defunct Chargehand role. Notwithstanding their recommendation for acceptance these proposals were rejected by those associated with this dispute.
However, in this case the Court is fully satisfied that the proposals, as negotiated and set out in the recommendation of the IRO of the LRC, are at the outer limit of what could reasonably be expected of the Company. In these circumstances the Court can seen no scope for any adjustment or modification in those proposals. Accordingly the Court recommends that they be accepted.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
25th June, 2010______________________
MG.Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Madelon Geoghegan, Court Secretary.