FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : MUSGRAVE RETAIL PARTNERS IRELAND - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Hayes Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Hearing arising from LCR19848.
BACKGROUND:
2. The case before the Court concerns a claim by the Union on behalf of its members employed as Salaried Distribution Team Members (SDTMs) in the Company's chill distribution centre based in Clondalkin, Dublin 22, in relation to pay and changes to terms and conditions of employment. The issues in dispute were previously heard before the Court and were the subject of Labour Court Recommendation No.19848, issued by the Court on 29th June, 2010. Following LCR19848, the Company and the Union entered into further negotiations and on several occassions engaged the services of the Labour Relations Commission. A number of Conciliation Conferences were held however agreement could not be reached between the parties and a settlement was not negotiated. The case was referred back to the Labour Court on 23rd September, 2010, in accordance with Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on 2nd June, 2011. The Company agreed to be bound by the Recommendation of the Court.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Company is debt-free and remains a highly profitable organisation despite experiencing a reduction in sales.
2. The Company continues to claim inability to pay increases owed to workers despite their strong financial position and increases already paid to other groups.
3. The Union contends that the Company has the financial resources to retrospectively pay increases owed to workers since 2009, however, they continue to refuse to do so.
4. The Company is making it increasingly difficult to reach agreement and is refusing to negotiate on other unresolved issues.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company has suffered the effects of the downturn in the economy and particularly in the retail sector.
2.The Company has experienced a reduction in sales due to the closure of many retail outlets.
3. In order to remain competitive and maintain its market share the Company was required to introduce measures such as reducing product prices and carrying out an internal review of operating and logistical costs.
4.The Company contends that concession of the Union's pay claim could potentially create further knock-on claims from groups that have already concluded negotiations or from groups that are currently in negotiations.
5.The Company has on several occassions attempted to negotiate and to reach a settlement with the group of employees, however, this has not been possible to date.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has given careful consideration to the submissions of both parties in this dispute and recommends as follows: -
Pay:
The Court recommends that the pay of this category of employees be increased by 5% as follows
Phase 1
•2% with effect from the first day of the month of issue of this Recommendation ie, 1st July, 2011 for a period of twelve months.
Phase 2
•1.5% with effect from the expiry of phase 1 above for a further period oftwelve months.
Phase 3
•1.5% with effect from the expiry of phase 2 above for a further period oftwelve months.
The Court notes that this will give rise to different pay round dates in each of the warehouses in which it operates. The Court further recommends that the parties engage further with a view to agreeing common start and finishing dates for future wage round adjustments.
Work Changes:
The Court recommends that the workers involved operate the new voice technology system proposed by the Company. The Court further recommends that pick assignments be allocated to all employees through a single voice technology-compatible system. Finally, the Court recommends that, following the introduction of the new technology and revised pick system, the Company undertakes a new work study exercise in the warehouse to determine fair work standards in the context of the new work arrangements.
Rosters:
The Court recommends that the staff accept the Company’s proposals for a quarterly review of rosters to take account of changing business needs and demands.
Sick Pay System:
The Court recommends that the sick pay system be brought into line with the arrangements in place in all other locations.
Sunday Working:
The Court recommends that the minimum number of Sundays actually worked by this category of staff be increased from 13 to 19 per annum.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Brendan Hayes
12th July 2011______________________
SCDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Sharon Cahill, Court Secretary.