FULL RECOMMENDATION
SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : LLOYDS PHARMACY IRELAND LIMITED - AND - GROUP OF WORKERS (REPRESENTED BY MANDATE TRADE UNION) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Foley Employer Member: Ms Connolly Worker Member: Ms Tanham |
1. Payscales, Terms & Conditions of Employment
BACKGROUND:
2. This case concerns a pay claim and associated matters by the Trade Union on behalf of approximately 200 members.
On the 8 November 2017, the Union referred this dispute to the Labour Court in accordance with Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969.
A Labour Court hearing took place on the 16 April 2018.
UNION’S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Trade Union seeks improvements in Pay, Sick Pay, Contractual Security, Annual Leave and Public Holiday/Sunday Premium payments.
2. The improvements being sought are no more than what exist in the most direct and relevant competitor to LloydsPharmacy.
3. The Union says that a Colleague Representative Committee (CRC) was only set up since Mandate sought to progress claims on behalf of its members. It says that this Committee is not independent of Management.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company has a history of progressive HR practices and direct engagement with colleagues. The introduction of a trade union would work against the culture which has developed over many years and restrict the Company's ability to communicate directly with colleagues.
2. The Company denies that the Comparator named by the Trade Union is in fact its main competitor.
3. The Company says that the Colleague Representative Committee (CRC) is the appropriate forum for all matters referred to in the Unions claim to be addressed. The CRC is independent of Management and that no Company representatives are members of the CRC.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has given very careful consideration to the written and oral submissions of the parties.
The Trade Union asserts that it represents over 190 staff of the Employer who are in membership of the Trade Union. The Employer asserts that another representative organisation represents staff of the Employer in engagements on matters relating to terms and conditions of employment. The Employer submitted that a recent issue as regards branch closure was addressed and resolved in engagements between the Employer and this other organisation.
The Court has not had the benefit of submissions from the other organisation and, while that is understandable insofar as that other organisation is not a party to the within dispute, it does leave the Court without a perspective on behalf of staff who it is suggested are represented by that other organisation.
In all of the circumstances of this matter, the Court is not able to draw a conclusion that the operation of the other organisation asserted by the Employer to be representative of staff within the employment should inhibit staff in membership of the Trade Union from engagement with their Employer. The Court therefore is not in a position to conclude that the wish of the membership of the Trade Union to engage with their Employer on the matters of pay, sick pay, contractual security, annual leave and public holiday / Sunday premium payments is unreasonable. The Trade Union has sought a Recommendation from the Court addressing all of these matters in specific terms. The Court believes that, in the absence of engagement between the parties, it is not feasible to address such issues definitively.
In all of the circumstances the Court recommends that the parties engage in order to seek agreement in relation to the matters raised by the Trade Union and if such matters remain unresolved following such engagement to utilise available procedures including the services of the Workplace Relations Commission and the Court in an effort to secure resolution.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Foley
17 April, 2018______________________
CCChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Ceola Cronin, Court Secretary.