FULL RECOMMENDATION
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : A RETAIL MULTIPLE (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION MANDATE DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Haugh Employer Member: Mr Marie Worker Member: Mr McCarthy |
1. Overtime Loss Of Earnings
BACKGROUND:
2. This dispute relates to the Company's desire to reduce the cost of guaranteed overtime for a group of 40 Workers who transferred from Roches Stores a number of years ago.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 23rd May 2017 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court Hearing took place on 27th of June 2017
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
The Unions argued that the Workers who would serve to be impacted by the removal of the previously agreed overtime payment would be disproportionately affected when compared to other staff when the new pay harmonisation model is considered. Furthermore, the Unions stated that the savings that could be generated by the removal of the guaranteed overtime for this group of workers were of an insignificant amount when considered in the overall scale of the Company's operations.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
The Company argued that due to a change in shopping patterns in recent years, with more emphasis on online shopping, there has been a reduction in the profit share of retail outlets. As such,the Company believes that issues such as a reduction in guaranteed overtime are a matter of common cause between the Unions and the Company in order to ensure the continued survival of the Company. The Company also stressed that the level of wages being paid to the group of Workers in question was of an un-sustainable amount in the context of a loss making business.
RECOMMENDATION:
Background to the Dispute
The within dispute concerns 40 Workers who have a contractual entitlement to guaranteed overtime hours at premium rates. The Respondent has proposed a mandatory buy-out of the Workers’ contractual entitlement at 1.5 times their annual loss. The Unions are resisting this proposal on the basis that it is being made within a very short time after they entered into an agreement with the Respondent wherein their Members agreed to significant cost-saving measures, including a freeze on pay increments for one year and the introduction of pay harmonisation arrangements for a large number of Workers. The Unions submit that the Respondent’s proposal, if given effect to, will further diminish the earning of the affected Workers.
The Respondent submits that historical arrangement in question is no longer financially sustainable and is no longer justified in the light of changing shopping trends.
Recommendation
Having considered both the Unions’ and the Respondent’s submissions, the Court recommends that the Respondent offer each of the 40 affected Workers the following options:
•To continue to work according to their current contractual arrangement;•To accept a voluntary redundancy settlement on the terms offered by the Respondent in the most recent round of redundancies;
•To accept a voluntary buy-out of the contractually guaranteed overtime hours at 1.5 times their annual loss calculated by reference to each individual’s actual relevant earnings in the previous 12 months.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Alan Haugh
JD______________________
4 July 2017Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to John Deegan, Court Secretary.