INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2001
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
HEATONS LIMITED, CLONMEL
(REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION)
- AND -
Chairman: Mr Flood
Employer Member: Mr Carberry
Worker Member: Mr O'Neill
1. Increase in the top point of the pay scale
2. The Company employs 20 full and part-time staff at its Clonmel store. The Union claims that the top point of the pay scale in Clonmel is below average. It states that a Company/Union agreement in 2000 provided for a review of the top point of the pay scale twelve months from the date of that agreement.
Management rejects the Union's claim. They state that the Union accepted the deal in 2000 and that they never agreed that the Union could come back and a make a further pay claim.
As no agreement was possible between the parties the dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commission. A conciliation conference was held but agreement was not reached. The dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 18th October, 2002 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. The Court investigated the dispute on the 28th January, 2003.
3. 1. The agreement concluded in 2000 was accepted by the Union on the basis that the top of the pay scale be re-negotiated twelve months from the date of the agreement.2. The rates of pay in the Clonmel store are significantly below the rates of pay in competitor stores in the area.3. The Court is asked to award an increase from December, 2001 which will bring their rates of pay into line with those of their fellow workers in other employments in Clonmel.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:4. 1 The rates of pay in the Clonmel branch are competitive when compared with similar size companies.2. In August, 2000, the Company negotiated an agreement with the Union which yielded increases between 13% and 24% above the terms of the PPF.3. The Company has always honoured its commitments under national and local agreements. There was no agreement to re-negotiate the top point of the current pay scale.4. This is a cost increasing claim and is precluded under the terms of the PPF.
The Court is satisfied that this claim is in breach of the P.P.F. and therefore cannot be pursued.
The Court therefore rejects the Union claim in this case.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Larry Wisely, Court Secretary.