FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : MUSGRAVE RETAIL PARTNERS - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Hearing arising from LCR20143
BACKGROUND:
2. The matter before the Court concerns issues arising during discussions between the parties following Labour Court Recommendation No. 20143. The dispute concerns 135 Salary Distribution Team Members (SDTMs) in the Company's Cork Chill Depot. On the 30th August, 2011 the Labour Court issued a Recommendation to the parties concerning the terms and conditions of employment and pay increases contained in the national agreement T2016. The Court's Recommendation provided for further discussions between the parties and the option to return to the Court with any outstanding issues. Following a number of meetings in January, 2012 a proposal containing progress over the outstanding issues emerged. The progress was not enough to reach agreement.
This 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 21st October, 2011, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 2nd February, 2012.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1 The voluntary redundancy package should be increased to attract the numbers required by the Company.
2 Any vacancies that arise on days from redundancies should be filled by giving the option to the night SDTMs to move to days. The night shift vacancies should be filled by the new Hourly Distribution Team Members (HDTMs).
3 The Union is seeking a lead in payment of €3,000 with some additional allocation of shares each year.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1 The Company rejects the Union's claim for an increase in the voluntary redundancy package. The package offered is the established package agreed with the Union in the past. It is accepted by all other depots and categories of employees.
2 The Company needs to reduce SDTMs by days by up to 30 through redundancy. The sole objective of the voluntary redundancies is to reduce the overall number of day SDTMs. Backfilling those who leave defeats the purpose of the redundancy programme.
3 The Company cannot agree to an additional lead in payment. This was not paid to any other category of employees. The Company proposed to pay an accuracy bonus instead.
RECOMMENDATION:
Having carefully considered the submissions of the parties the Court is satisfied that significant progress has been made on many of the issues left over for further negotiations following the previous Court investigation. Having regard to all the circumstances of the case the Court does not believe a basis exists upon which it could recommend further concessions beyond those contained in the final document tabled by the Company dated 24th January 2012.
Accordingly the Court recommends that that document be accepted.
In the course of the hearing the Union emphasised the importance of finding a solution to what was referred to as the "1 in 4" issue. This, as the Court understands it relates to a long standing aspiration of those working permanently on nights to alternate to day working on one week in four. This necessarily involves day workers alternating to night work to accommodate this facility. To date, agreement between the two groups on such an arrangement has not been forthcoming.
The Court understands that this issue is the subject of a separate process. Consequently it is not appropriate for the Court to seek to address it in any definitive way. However, the Court does believe that the aspiration of permanent night workers to be occasionally accommodated with day work has merit. The parties should seek to find a solution to this problem which recognises the merit of this aspiration while addressing the competing interests of the different groups of workers involved. The Court would, accordingly, urge the parties to continue to work towards such a solution through the appropriate procedures.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
17th February, 2012______________________
DNChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to David P Noonan, Court Secretary.