INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2001
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
C & C WHOLESALE
(REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION)
- AND -
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
Chairman: Ms Jenkinson
Employer Member: Mr Pierce
Worker Member: Mr O'Neill
1. Pay Increase
2. The Company is part of the C&C Group of companies which includes Showerings, Ballygowan and Tayto amongst others. It is responsible for the distribution of alcoholic beverages and minerals throughout the country. The Union's claim is for a pay parity with colleagues in Showerings. The company's case is that Showerings is a production company and, as such, there is no comparison between the work.
The dispute was referred to the Labour Relation Commission and a conciliation conference took place. As the parties did not reach agreement, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 27th September, 2001, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 13th of February, 2002, the earliest date suitable to the parties.
3. 1. The workers concerned are part of the same Group as their colleagues in Showerings and are engaged in similar work.
2. There is a difference in pay in some cases of €130 per week, and a difference in expenses of approximately €46 per week.
3. Deliveries in 2001 had increased considerably on 2000, and this was also the case with empties returned. The workers have increased productivity in a number of areas (details supplied to the Court) but have received no increased payment.
4. 1. The Company in now fully involved in wholesale distribution and is independent from other companies in the C&C Group. As such, comparisons with Showerings, for example, cannot be made.
2. The Company is already in a very uncompetitive position regarding its own delivery costs. Conceding the Union's claim would only increase costs.
3. The rates of pay are at the higher end of those generally applicable in the drinks wholesale industry.
4. The claim is cost increasing and, as such, is debarred under the terms of the Programme for Prosperity and Fairness (PPF). Concession of the claim would have major knock-on implications.
Having considered the submissions of both sides, the Court considers this claim to be precluded under the terms of the Programme for Prosperity and Fairness (PPF) and, therefore, does not recommend concession of the claim.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
11th March, 2002______________________
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Ciaran O'Neill, Court Secretary.