FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : MUSGRAVE RETAIL PARTNERS IRELAND - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Terms and conditions of employment and non-payment of pay percentage increases as contained in the national agreement T2016 - Cork Chill Depot.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company operates 4 distribution facilities, both ambient and chill. This dispute concerns 135 workers in the Cork Chill Warehouse. Each of the 4 sites has different negotiating and working arrangements. The Company is seeking a number of productivity measures from the Union (due to the a major drop in spending across the entire retail market) and in return is prepared to look at increases in pay. The increases would be less than the 6% sought by the Union under Toward 2016 (T2016) which the Company says is no longer applicable. The main issues for the Company are(1) the introduction of voice technology, (2) a change in the balance in numbers between Hourly Distribution Team Members (HDTMs) and Salaried Distribution Team Members (SDTMs), (3) changes to the sick pay scheme, (4) a reduction of up to 30 SDTMs and (5) the Company has stressed the importance of Sunday working.The Union accepts that a number of the Company's proposals are necessary but has presented a list of its own requests as below:-
- The pay increase should be the retrospective 6% as claimed by the Union
- The reduction of hours on a Sunday is insufficient and should be a reduction in the number of Sunday shifts required.
- The bonus element is sufficient with the exception that we are seeking a lead in payment of at least €3,000 with some additional allocation of shares each year. We will accept the payment of 50% up-front and 50% after the sign-off of the new standards.
- The allowances around the roll out are insufficient and the time frame is too short. We are seeking a trial period of 6 months and a re-measure after all of the kinks have been worked out of the system. The new standards should only be implemented after all parties associated with the monitoring committee have signed off on them.
- The offer from the Company for the conversion of contracts from SDTM to HDTM should have at least 3 times the annual loss which amounts to approximately €30,000.
- The Company need to increase the voluntary redundancy to attract the numbers needed to rebalance the groups to the number desired by the Company
- We require that any vacancies on days arising from the redundancy be filled by giving an option to the night SDTMs to move to days and have the night shift vacancies filled with the new HDTMs
- The agreement on BSI introduced in 2002 was fraught with problems that have still not been resolved, even 9 years later. Issues such as congestion, non-coded products etc. still cause on-going problems in the warehouse. Consequently, our members have no confidence that the Company will commit fully to addressing any issues that may arise under the new system.
- There is a fear that the introduction of the new voice technology will result in job losses.
The dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commission (LRC) and two conciliation conferences took place, followed by further local level discussions. As the parties did not reach agreement, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 19th October, 2010, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 24th August, 2011. The following is the Court's recommendation:
RECOMMENDATION:
It appears to the Court that the absence of progress in finalising an agreement may be attributable to a concentration on aspirations which, in reality, are not attainable. In that regard the Court does not believe that there is any realistic basis upon which improvement can be obtained on the pay increase proposed by the Company. The Court is also satisfied that there are significant practical impediments to addressing the Union's aspiration for a reduction in the attendance liability on Sundays.
The Court recommends that the Union should accept the pay increase proposed. It should also accept that unless the practical difficulties in reducing the requirement for Sunday working can be overcome, this issue should not be pursued further at this time. The Union should also accept that the change agenda proposed by the Company is both necessary and reasonable and should be accepted.
The remaining items identified by the Union and set out in its submission to the Court should be the subject of further discussions between the parties with a view to reaching agreement. These discussions should continue up to 30th September 2011 at the latest. If agreement is not reached by that date the matter may be referred back to the Court for a final recommendation. In the event of the matter being referred back the Court will facilitate the parties with the earliest possible hearing date.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
30th August, 2011.______________________
CON.Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Ciaran O'Neill, Court Secretary.