FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : DUNNES STORES - AND - A GROUP OF WORKERS (REPRESENTED BY MANDATE TRADE UNION) DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Wage Increase
BACKGROUND:
2. This case concerns a claim by the Union for a 3% increase in pay. The Union contends that the employer did not engage with the workers in relation to the pay increase, which it claims is at variance with an agreement previously concluded between the parties. The Union further contends that applying the 3% increase will merely bring the workers in line with comparable employees in other employment. The Union (on behalf of the workers) referred the matter to the Labour Court in accordance with Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969 and agreed to be bound by the Court's Recommendation. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 17th January, 2013. The Company did not attend.
UNION'S ARGUMENT:
3 1 The Company has failed to abide by the terms of the Company/Union agreement which has been in place for many years. The current rates of pay in the Company are well below the terms and conditions that apply in the Company's main competitors and any increase in pay will only bring the workers in line with those other employees.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court finds it regrettable that the Company failed to attend the hearing to put forward its side of the case.
In LCR 19511 and LCR 20029 the Court noted that the Company and the Union were party to a collective agreement signed in 1996 which provides a procedural framework within which industrial relations disputes and differences arising between the parties can be resolved by negotiation and dialogue. The Court pointed out that the dictates of good industrial relations practice requires parties to honour their collective agreements in both the spirit and intent. However, it now appears that the Company has failed to observe these procedures in dealing with the Union’s claim. The Court once again emphasises the need for both parties to engage with each other in accordance within the terms of the 1996 agreement in relation to any disputes and differences between the parties.
Mr. Gerry Light, Mandate, informed the Court of recent developments with regard to its claim for a 3% pay increase for its members employed in all the Company’s outlets. He told the Court that on the eve of the Court hearing, the Company, through its local management structure, announced that rates of pay will be increased by 3% with effect from 7thFebruary 2013. The Union accepted that this action was in concession of its claim before the Court, however, he expressed the Union’s dissatisfaction with the Company’s failure to abide by its collective agreement.
In such circumstances the Court has no hesitation in recommending in favour of the Union’s claim for a 3% increase in rates of pay.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
4th February 2013______________________
AHDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Andrew Heavey, Court Secretary.