FULL RECOMMENDATION
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : TESCO IRELAND LTD - AND - MANDATE TRADE UNION SERVICE INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Foley Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Mr Shanahan |
1. Proposed changes to the pre-1996/1997 contracts of workers.
BACKGROUND:
2. This dispute relates to the Company’s decision to change the pre-1996/1997 contracts of workers.
The Unions said that following agreement on a 2006 contract, the company agreed that workers on pre-1996/1997 contracts would retain their existing contracts.
The Employer said the pre-1996/1997 contracts did not meet the needs of the business in the extremely competitive grocery sector and that it needed to convert those contracts to more modern ones.
- This dispute could not be resolved at local level and was the subject of a Conciliation Conference under the auspices of the Workplace Relations Commission. As agreement was not reached, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 4th October 2016 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990.
A Labour Court hearing took place on the 25thOctober 2016.
UNION’S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. Over 700 pre-1996/1997 workers have taken voluntary redundancy.
2. Any changes to the pre-1996/1997 contacts of the remaining 300 workers should be done on a voluntary basis with each individual.
3. The threat to unilaterally change their terms and conditions of employment should be removed immediately.
EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company offers the best rates of pay and benefits in the sector.
2. The Company acknowledges that the proposals require compromise from both sides.
3. The modern contract continues to offer a market-leading reward package compared to the company’s competitors.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has been presented with significantly different perspectives by both sides as regards the substance of what is before the Court.
The parties are agreed that an extensive process of engagement and negotiation culminated in the Workplace Relations Commission taking the exceptional step of making its own proposals for resolution of the issues at the request of the parties. In the event those proposals did not find favour with the Union side.
The Company has urged the Court to consider only whether the proposals of the Commission were at the limit of what can be expected as the terms on offer relating to the change involved and to endorse the WRC proposals in full as the means of resolving the dispute.
The Trade Union side for its part made no submission requesting the Court to engage with the content of the WRC proposals but rather asked the Court to address the disputed issues. The Trade Union side asked the Court to recommend a different framework for engagement than that which had been employed by the parties to date. Specifically the Trade Union side asked the Court to recommend a framework which would allow impacted employees to voluntarily choose certain options that would have the benefit of balancing their needs along with the local store in which they worked.
The Court acknowledges that very significant developments have taken place as regards the cohort of staff employed by the Company prior to 1996 / 1997. Indeed a very significant proportion of such staff have left the employment during the course of the engagements which have resulted in the present hearing before the Court.
The Court also acknowledges that very significant changes have occurred in the Company’s business sector since the middle 1990’s.
The current terms of employment enjoyed by the Trade Union side are the result of collective agreements voluntarily concluded. The Court supports the contention that agreements voluntarily entered into should remain in place until replaced by a new agreement. That contention however relies on the proposition that no agreement is immutable and the conduct of good industrial relations necessarily involves continuing engagement on the agreements which determine terms and conditions of employment. That engagement must of course involve a commitment to engage where necessary to address issues arising from the nature of the business environment as it evolves.
The parties have engaged extensively in an attempt to conclude a collective agreement which would deal with the matter comprehensively. That engagement resulted in the proposals of the WRC dated 2ndAugust 2015. No submission has been made to the Court which would suggest that the proposals of the WRC are anything other than the best possible collective agreement that could be achieved by negotiation taking account of all the circumstances.
The parties have contended separately for (a) a collective agreement in line with the WRC proposals of 2nd August 2016 having national application in the appropriate form in all affected stores, or (b) a process of local single store based engagement leading to local agreements reflective of the local store. The Court recommends that the parties should, over a period of eight weeks, engage meaningfully in a locally based process focussed on delivering the flexibility appropriate to the store and the nature of the business experienced by the store in a manner reflective of local and individual circumstances. That process should be guided generally by the content of the WRC proposals. The parties should assess the effectiveness of local engagement in terms of dealing with the matter after a period of eight weeks. Should the parties fail to agree on the effectiveness of a locally based process that matter may be referred to the Court for definitive recommendation.
In the event that the locally based process does not show clear evidence of a capacity to achieve resolution in the medium term the Court recommends that the WRC proposals should then be accepted as the means of national resolution of the issues currently before the Court.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Foley
CR______________________
21st November, 2016.Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Ciaran Roche, Court Secretary.