FULL RECOMMENDATION
SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : LLOYDS PHARMACY IRELAND LIMITED - AND - MANDATE TRADE UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Ms Connolly Worker Member: Mr McCarthy |
1. Union recognition and increases in pay and terms and conditions of employment.
BACKGROUND:
2. The case concerns a claim by the Union on behalf of its members across a number of grades in the Company for increases in pay and terms and conditions of employment.
On the 19 February 2019 the Union referred the dispute to the Labour Court in accordance with Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969 and agreed to be bound by the Court's Recommendation.
A Labour Court hearing took place on the 26 April 2019. The Employer did not attend the hearing or outline its position to the Court in correspondence.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The parent company formally recognises and actively engages with two other Trade Unions.
2. The business most comparable to the Employer in the Republic of Ireland has many collective agreements with the Union that govern the terms and conditions of employment of over 700 members employed in that business.
3. The Union is seeking a 3.4% pay increase for all its members; the establishment of incremental pay scales across all grades; improvements in sick pay, annual leave entitlements and in public holiday and Sunday premium payments.
RECOMMENDATION:
The matter before the Court was brought under Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act 1969 and concerns a claim by the Union on behalf of approximately 170 members across a number of grades in the Company for increases in pay and terms and conditions of employment. The Union sought a 3.4% pay increase for all its members; the establishment of incremental pay scales across all grades; improvements in sick pay, annual leave entitlements and in public holiday and Sunday premium payments.
It is regrettable that in such a significant issue the Employer did not attend the hearing before the Court to outline its position.
At a previous hearing before the Court when both parties were in attendance, the Court issued the following Recommendation, LCR21698, under Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act 1969:-
- “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.”
In all the circumstances, the Court recommends that the Employer should recognise the Union as the Representative of those employees who are in membership of the Union and should engage with it in dealing with the issues which are the subject of this claim affecting those members.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
CR______________________
16 May, 2019Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Ciaran Roche, Court Secretary.