FULL RECOMMENDATION
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : DAIRYGOLD (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Marie Worker Member: Ms Tanham |
1. The rate of pay for new entrants in the Mitchelstown Yard.
BACKGROUND:
2. This dispute relates to a claim by the Union that new entrants to the Company’s yard in Mitchelstown are paid the rates of existing staff in the yard.
- 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 15 September 2017 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990.
A Labour Court hearing took place on the 8 November 2017.
UNION’S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Mitchelstown Yard is the largest yard in the Retail Division. It is made up of seven large storage areas / sheds with each store handling different products.
2. Prior to an Agreement reached in 2001, the Outdoor staff had one core post each. Following the Agreement staff change every fortnight to each one of the seven individual stores so that they can deal with any request from a customer.
3. The changes carried a huge responsibility from having one core post to now being in a position to carry out any task that was required in the yard.
EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. In 2001 the Company reached a collective agreement with SIPTU regarding pay and conditions for employees in the Mitchelstown Yard and it expressly agreed that employees who had been redeployed from other Divisions would retain their rate on a person to holder basis.
2. The Company is prepared to honour the 2001 agreement on a person to holder basis for the seven individuals in the Mitchelstown Yard.
3. However, it is essential for the efficient and modern operation of the retail division that new entrants be treated in the same way as other Dairygold retail staff working within the retail division.
RECOMMENDATION:
The matter before the Court concerns a dispute over the rate of pay to be paid for new entrants to the Company’s yard in Mitchelstown. In 2003 the parties reached an agreement regarding pay and conditions of employment for employees in the Mitchelstown Yard. This agreement included a provision that employees who had been redeployed from other divisions would retain their rates of pay on a person to holder basis. Four of the seven employees in the yard were deployed from other areas of the Company.
In November 2014, at national level the parties completed a new procedural agreement, which included a 37 month pay agreement and a commitment with the Union to recognise the Company’s need to adapt and change to changing market conditions. Rates of pay were agreed which applied generally throughout the Company, however the seven employees employed in Mitchelstown Yard retained their rates of pay.
The Company intend to employ new entrants at the generally applicable rates of pay as apply to the 38 other retail sites. Whereas the Union claim that the rates applicable to employees employed in Mitchelstown Yard should apply to any new recruits employed in that Yard. It submitted that the working conditions at the Mitchelstown Yard were more onerous than at other sites, specifically the number of bulk feeds bins and the requirement to cut steel.
While accepting that the volume was bigger in the Mitchelstown Yard and there were different terms and conditions of employment (hours of work etc.), the Company disputed the Union’s contention that the work was more onerous than other sites. It stated that shop staff employed in the past 7 years in Mitchelstown have been employed on the generally applicable rates as have temporary yard staff. However, it stated that the Mitchelstown store underperforms financially compared to other equivalent stores.
Having considered the submissions of both parties, the Court is satisfied that the rates which currently apply to warehouse staff in the Mitchelstown Yard are anomalous and atypical. Therefore, the Court is of the view that the generally applicable pay rates that apply elsewhere in the Company should equally apply to all staff employed in the future, whether in Mitchelstown Yard or otherwise. The Company should seek to negotiate the remaining terms and conditions of employment for those employees employed in that Yard in the future on matters such as hours of work etc.
For the avoidance of doubt the Court wishes to make it clear that the pay rates which currently apply to the seven employees in the Mitchelstown Yard should be retained on a personal to holder basis.
The Court so Recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
CR______________________
30 November, 2017Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Ciaran Roche, Court Secretary.