FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : TESCO IRELAND (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS EMPLOYERS CONFEDERATION - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION MANDATE DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Hayes Employer Member: Ms Cryan Worker Member: Mr Nash |
1. Pay increase.
BACKGROUND:
2. The dispute before the Court concerns a claim by the unions MANDATE and SIPTU for a pay increase equivalent to the phases of the T2016 Transitional Agreement which have been outstanding since 2008.
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 30th June 2010, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 13th October 2010 following which the parties were directed to engage in discussion on the basis that the Company accepted that any increase would increase its overall pay costs and the Union side accepted that concessions would have to form part of the discussions.
A meeting took place between the parties on the 29th November 2010. The Company announced that its position had changed since the original Labour Court hearing and that any pay increase would only be considered on the basis that it is cost neutral. The reason for the change in the Company's position was the further decline in the economy. The payment of an increase which would add costs to the business was inconceivable.
The Company's position was not acceptable to the Unions side and the meeting concluded with no further meetings arranged.
As no agreement could be reached the case was referred back to the Court. A second hearing took place on the 3rd May 2011.
UNIONS' ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Unions maintain that the Company can afford to pay a wage increase to its staff as the Company has never claimed an inability to pay, rather it has tried to attack terms and conditions of employment in exchange for a pay increase. The Company's position that a pay increase must be cost neutral is unacceptable.
2. The Unions contend that the Company is the most profitable within the retail sector in Ireland and returned record annual profits for the group in April 2011. It holds 27% of the Irish grocery market.
3. The Company continues to expand and a number of stores have opened in the last six months.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. It is the Company's position that a pay increase in the current climate is unwarranted and will only make it uncompetitive versus its main competitors.
2. To award a pay rise will not only jeopardise the Company's ability to compete but also its ability to invest and create employment and threaten existing employment.
3. While the Company is declining to award a pay increase unless it is cost neutral, it has not implemented pay cuts or a pay freeze unlike other employers.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has carefully considered the submissions of both parties in this dispute.
The Court does not recommend concession of the Unions' claim at this time. Noting that the Company has not pleaded inability to pay, the Court further recommends that the parties meet again early in 2012 with a view to revisiting the matter in the context of the circumstances then prevailing.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Brendan Hayes
11th May, 2011______________________
MG.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Madelon Geoghegan, Court Secretary.