FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : SHAWS (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - MANDATE DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Ms Doyle Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. A number of issues.
BACKGROUND:
2. Shaws Department Stores is a family-owned Irish retail business which trades in 15 locations. In total 575 people are employed directly in the business, with a further 300 people employed by concession partners who trade in the Company's stores. The Company retails menswear, ladieswear, childrensware, footwear, cosmetics, homewares and electrics.
An initial Labour Court hearing took place in November 2009 following which both parties, as requested, re-entered discussions at the conciliation services of the Labour Relations Commission on a range of agreed issues which were outstanding. Agreement was reached on a number of those issues. Further financial guidance was also received from Mr. Eugene McMahon of Mazars who produced a written report to the Commission in December 2009. The Company regards this financial report as a vitally important document.
The dispute before the Court concerns cost-saving measures, including redundancies, which the Company is seeking to introduce in response to a substantial drop in revenues. Other issues in contention are the Union's claim for compensation for losses due to a) a voluntary reduction in full time hours for nine staff, b) buy out of Christmas premium payment in December and November, and c) buy out of double commission in Waterford.
The Union has indicated that it would accept a buy-out at twice the annual loss whilst the Company were prepared to offer 1.5 times the loss based on averages and subject to payments not being greater than what could have been earned.
The dispute could not be resolved at local level and was the subject of two conciliation conferences under the auspices of the Labour Relations Commission. As no agreement was reached the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 9th February, 2010, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 24th March, 2010.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Union contends that all redundancies should be voluntary. and that the terms should be five weeks pay per year of service inclusive of statutory entitlements and without any cap.
2. The Union is prepared to accept a pay freeze for a duration of twelve months and any extension or lifting of the freeze should only occur following consultation and agreement between the parties.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company is seeking 26 voluntary redundancies across eight stores. It is also seeking two full-time and three part-time compulsory redundancies. The compulsory redundancies are necessary as the roles carried out by the individuals are to cease.
2. The Company is seeking an 18-month freeze on incremental wage progression, without retrospective payments, and with a provision for a review at the end of the period.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court recommends as follows in relation to each of the issues in dispute:-
Pay Pause
Having regard to the financial and commercial circumstances of the Company the Court recommends that an 18-month pay pause, effective from 1st March 2009 should be accepted by the Union. On the termination of that pay pause the parties should enter into negotiations on pay.
Rostered Overtime
It is noted that the Company is not pursuing its previous position on this item.
Voluntary Redundancy
The Court does not recommend the imposition of a cap on the amount which the individual can receive. However, the scheme should be regarded as voluntary on both sides and the Company should have the right to accept or reject any applicant for voluntary redundancy. Furthermore the Court recommends that no individual should be entitled to receive a redundancy lump sum greater than the amount which they would otherwise earn up to minimal retirement age.
Compulsory Redundancy
The Court does not recommend any difference in the terms applicable to the proposed compulsory redundancies.
Voluntary Contract Reductions
Having regard to the voluntary nature of what is proposed the Court recommends that the Company's offer be accepted.
Freeze on Incremental Wage Progression
The Court recommends that the Company's revised position on this item be accepted by the Union.
Christmas Bonus
The Court does not recommend any change in the current arrangements in relation to Christmas Bonus.
Cash Office Staff
The Court recommends that the Company's position on this item be accepted.
Premium Payments Related to Pre-Christmas Trading
The Court recommends a buy-out rate of twice the annual loss.
Tx3 Sundays Confined to December Only
The Court recommends a buy-out of this benefit at a rate of twice the actual loss as it applies to each individual affected.
Other Matters
It is noted that a number of other matters which formed part of the original referral to the Court were resolved at conciliation. The Court recommends that the agreement on those matters be implemented by the parties as part of the overall settlement of the dispute.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
29th March, 2010______________________
MG.Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Madelon Geoghegan, Court Secretary.