FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : LADBROKES IRELAND - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Ms Doyle Worker Member: Mr Shanahan |
1. Terms & Conditions of Employment
BACKGROUND:
2. This case concerns a dispute between the Company and Union in relation to proposed changes to terms and conditions of employment. The Company is currently undergoing a national restructuring and is in dispute with the Union on three specific issues; 1) Harmonisation of Wages, 2) E-Contracts and 3) Single manning of Company premises. The dispute was not 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 matter was referred to the Labour Court in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on 20th April 2012.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3 1Harmonisation of Wages:The Union cannot accept the Company proposals in relation to this issue as there will be many members of staff that will have a significant reduction in earnings as a result of the restructuring.
2E-Contracts:There are staff employed by the Company who need only work evenings and weekends on a voluntary basis. If these staff receive a pay increase under the Company proposals they will have new contracts of employment which will require them to change their hours and patterns of attendance.
3Single Manning:The introduction of single manning is not acceptable to the workers on Health and Safety grounds. There are many incidences that occur which would not be acceptable or safe for the worker if they were to be alone on the Company premises.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4 1Harmonisation of Wages:The Company proposals envisages a wage increase for 85% of staff. The staff that incur a loss of earnings will be paid compensation at a rate of one years' loss of earnings.
2E- Contracts:The workers who are currently on E-Contracts can retain their conditions of employment if they wish. However, if they receive a higher rate of pay for positions of greater responsibility, they will be required to accept new contracts of employment and agree to alter their current conditions of employment and patterns of attendance.
3Single Manning:The Health and Safety of the workforceis of the utmost importance to the Company. The introduction of single manning premises will only be introduced when there are less than 65 transactions per hour and only when Health and Safety concerns are satisfied. The Company has the most up to date and sophisticated Security systems in place and is fully conscious of its obligations to its workforce.
RECOMMENDATION:
The matter before the Court concerns a dispute between the parties over the Company’s proposed restructuring plans. Due to the Company’s serious trading conditions it put forward the proposed plan entitled “Project Rafael” to ensure the viability of the business and maintain employment going forward.
The Union’s difficulties with Project Rafael essentially centered on the workers concerns over three aspects of the plans, viz. Harmonisation of Wages, E-Contracts and Single Manning.
The Company submitted that it is imperative for the efficiency of its business that the key elements of Project Rafael are implemented without delay. At the same time it assured the Court that it was committed to continue its negotiations with the Union on the changes being proposed. The Company stated that the proposed changes will not take immediate effect across all its locations but will be rolled out in phases over a twelve to eighteen month period.
Having considered all aspects of the submissions made by both parties the Court recommends as follows:-
Harmonisation of Wages
As part of the Company’s proposals under Project Rafael, a number of existing grades will be harmonised into two new grades and a new role will be introduced called Market Place Manager with responsibility for between 1 and 4 shops depending on trading levels and geographical location.
The Union expressed its concern that Project Rafael would result in pay decreases for certain workers and accordingly sought red-circling of wage rates.
The Company indicated to the Court that under the terms of Project Rafael 85% of the workforce will receive a pay increase of up to 13%. However, it expects that 15% will have their hourly rate of pay reduced and accordingly have offered payment of one year’s loss to those workers affected.
The Court recommends that as the new structure is being implemented any worker who suffers a loss in earnings, once that loss has been crystallised should be compensated. The Court recommends that the Company offer to compensate for one year’s loss of earnings should be improved and recommends that two years’ loss of earnings should be paid in four equal installments.
“E-Contracts”
The Court notes that “E-Contracts” apply to those workers who were employed pre 1stJanuary 1999. These contracted workers to work over 6 days, between Monday to Saturday. Whereas those employed (or promoted) since 1999 were contracted to work over 7 days, to include evening work, these were known as “N-Contracts”. Over the years a hybrid system of working has developed. The Union wished to maintain this latter arrangement, whereby workers on “E-Contacts” worked Sundays and evenings on a voluntary basis. As part of Project Rafael the Company proposed to issue all employees with a standard N-Contract. However, it was willing to allow Union’s members with existing “E-Contracts” to retain the conditions attached to such contracts with the proviso that they work within its terms, i.e. no Sunday or evening work.
The Court fully accepts that on being promoted a worker must accept the terms and conditions of the post to which they are promoted.
In this case where a pre 1999 worker elects to remain on an “E-Contact” and where that decision results in a loss of earnings they should be compensated for any loss in earnings which may accrue as a result. The Court recommends two years’ loss of earnings should be paid in four equal instalments, paid in advance.
“Single Manning”
The Union expressed its concerns over the possible risks associated with the Company’s proposal to extend “single manning” to multiple locations and to increase the number of hours in stores where it currently operates.
The Company stated that as part of its Project Rafael proposals all its premises will be individually risk assessed and such assessments will continue in the future to monitor potential risks.
The Court notes that“Planned Single Scheduling in Safety”is an integral part of Project Rafael and the Company has committed to ensure that prior to its implementation in each location a risk assessment will be fully completed.
The Court accepts that the responsibility for health and safety matters is vested with the employer and recommends that all risk assessments and health and safety information should be made available to the Union. Furthermore, the Court recommends that where health and safety concerns arise at corporate level, the Union’s own Health and Safety experts should be involved in any discussions on these matters with the Company. If such concerns are raised at individual level the Court recommends that they should be processed through the Company’s grievance procedure. The Court notes that the Company gave an assurance that it will endeavour to address any health and safety concerns an individual worker may have and gave an assurance that no worker would be required to work in a Single Manning shop where those concerns cannot be adequately addressed.
Conclusion
The Court recommends that the Company’s proposals as amended by the above recommendations should be put to a ballot of the Union members as a composite package in full and final settlement of all issues referred to the Court.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
25th April 2012______________________
AHDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Andrew Heavey, Court Secretary.