FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : SUPERQUINN - AND - MANDATE (SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION) BAKERY FOOD ALLIED WORKERS UNION) DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Doherty Worker Member: Mr Nash |
1. Multiple Issues
BACKGROUND:
2. This case concerns a dispute between MANDATE and SIPTU/BFAWU and Superquinn in relation to terms and conditions of employment for employees of the Company.
The Company was aquired by the current owners in 2005 and cost cutting measures were introduced to improve its trading position. SIPTU/BFAWU reached agreement with the Company at the time that when the trading position improved discussions would take place for improvements in terms and conditions.
MANDATE Trade Union sought improvements for its members outside the terms of national pay agreements. A review of the Companys' trading position and subsequent discussions have led to the current dispute. The Unions' are now seeking the following: (1) Banded contracts (2) Increase in Christmas bonus (3) One day's additional annual leave (4) Adjustment of wage round dates (5) Establishment of working groups on Work/Life Balance and Profit/Gainsharing.
The Unions' contend that the financial situation of the Company has greatly improved since the acquisition in 2005 and management had given a commitment to the workers to conduct a review when the trading position had improved. The Unions' position is that its claims are justifiable given the current financial position of the Company and the co-operation and long service of the workers.
Management's position is that it applies pay increases agreed at national level and the claims, as presented, are cost increasing and unsustainable. It further contends that although its trading position has improved, there is also considerable expense associated with current and future investment.
The dispute could not be resolved at local level and was the subject of a conciliation conference under the auspices of the Labour Relations Commission. As agreement was not reached the matter was referred to the Labour Court on 25th Januay, 2008. A Labour Court hearing took place on 30th April, 2008.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3 1 The retail sector has traditionally been way behind in the payment of national wage agreements. Workers incur unacceptable delays in the payment of basic cost of living increases. This problem would be resolved if management brought forward the application of future wage increases.
2 The workers should know well in advance their expected hours of work and levels of earnings within agreed time bands. The current system allows management to fluctuate required hours by up to 50%. This is unacceptable and a greater degree of certainty should be provided. Contracts should state the average hours previously worked and should continue on that basis.
3In 2006, management gave an additional day's annual leave in recognition of the efforts of the staff in improving the Company's trading position. The Unions feel it appropriate that this additional day be granted on an ongoing basis.
4 Management have failed to forward specific proposals in relation to work life balance and gainsharing options despite giving a firm commitment on both issues in the recent review.
5 Comparable employments in the retail sector apply varying bonuses at Christmas ranging from two weeks basic pay to 5% of annual earnings. On the basis of this and the current financial position in the Company, the Unions are seeking a Christmas bonus of two weeks basic pay.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4 1 The Company has applied the terms of National Wage Agreements. The claims for additional Annual Leave, Christmas Bonus and the early payment of future national wage increases arecost increasing and, therefore, precluded under the terms of the agreements.
2 Management have agreed in principal to the introduction of work/life balance and gain sharing initiatives. It committed to engage on the possibility of introducing such measures but there has been no discussions at local level on the matter.
3 Management cannot introduce the banded contracts that are being sought by the Union. Such flexible contracts as exist in the Company provide for a minimum number of 18 hours each week and a maximum of 39 hours. In reality, there is minimal fluctuations in the contracts.
4 Management have made every effort to improve the terms and conditions of employment of its workers since it took over in 2005. The Defined Benefit Pension Scheme and the Colleague Assistance programme have both been restored.
5 The Unions' claims are unsustainable and will jeoparise the continuing viability of the Company into the future. During this transitional phase, maintaining employment is a key priority of management.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has given careful consideration to the cogent and very complete submissions provided by the parties as to the recent history of negotiations and the relevant issues themselves.
The Court notes the positive position resulting from the DB Pension Scheme continuing to remain available to new entrants and the Colleague Assistance Programme being reintroduced.
The Court also notes that the trading position of the Company has improved and there are development plans being implemented and further plans are envisaged.
However, the restructuring and turnaround of the business will require further time and in this context, the Court recommends that the parties identify and engage with an external facilitator to have a set of negotiations leading to a conclusive result on the following issues:
1. An improved situation surrounding bonded contracts to meet both the needs of the employees and the business within a six-month time period.
2. The desirability for and the implementation of a reasonable structure for relevant work life balance measures within a six-month time period.
3. The introduction of a Gainshare/Profit Share Scheme to apply throughout the Company within a six-month period.
The Court is precluded by Clause 1.4 of the pay agreement associated with “Towards 2016” from recommending concession of the Union’s claim for an alteration in the application of the dates of “Towards 2016”; an improvement of the Christmas Bonus and an increase in annual leave. Therefore, the Court cannot recommend concession of these claims.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
15th May 2008______________________
AHDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Andrew Heavey, Court Secretary.