FULL RECOMMENDATION
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : PETTITT'S SUPERVALU (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - MANDATE DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Hayes Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Ms O'Donnell |
1. Pay increase and banded hours.
BACKGROUND:
2. The case before the Court concerns a dispute between the Employer and the Union on behalf of its members currently employed by Pettitt's Supervalu retail outlets located in Co Wexford. The dispute relates specifically to two issues (i) pay increase and (ii) banded hours. The matter came before the Labour Court in March 2016. At this hearing it was agreed by the parties to continue negotiations under the auspices of the Workplace Relations Commission. At subsequent conciliation conferences it was decided that as agreement could not be reached between the parties, the dispute would be referred back to the Labour Court in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. At the second conciliation conference the Union advised that it was no longer concerned about banded hours as this would ultimately be dealt with through legislation in the future and therefore did not form part of this referral to the Court. A Labour Court hearing concerning the issue of pay took place on 15th September, 2016.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Union strongly opposes the Employer's proposed reduced new entrant pay rates and premium payments.
2. The Union maintains that the Employer is in a financial position to concede its claim for a pay increase at the rates sought by the Union.
3. The Union contends that it is not in a position to agree the Employer's pay increase proposals on the condition that it accepts the reduced new entrants premia as sought by the Employer.
EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Employer is experiencing increased competition and is seeking to introduce new pay scales and premium payments in order to remain competitive.
2. The Employer contends that the pay increases offered to the Union will allow the Company to maintain its current level of competitiveness.
3. The Employer further contends that it is not in a position to concede the Union's claim for enhanced pay increase rates above those offered by the Employer.
RECOMMENDATION:
Having given careful consideration to the submissions of both sides the Court recommends that the parties agree to increase pay as follows
1 April 2015 2%
1 January 2016 2%
1 January 2017 2%
1 January 2018 2%
Salary Scale:
The Court notes that the introduction of a proposed new salary scale will have no financial effect until 2019/2020 at the earliest. The Court also notes that there are developments taking place within the economy generally and the sector in particular that may have implications in the intervening period. Accordingly the Court recommends that both sides reserve their respective positions on this matter and revisit it in the first half of 2018 with the intention of applying the outcome of those discussions with effect from 1 January 2019.
Premium Rates
The Court recommends that the parties conduct a comprehensive review of premium rates in the retail sector with a view to engaging further and reaching agreement to take effect at the end of the current pay arrangements.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Brendan Hayes
5th October 2016______________________
SCDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Sharon Cahill, Court Secretary.