FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : ARCADIA GROUP MULTIPLES (IRELAND) LIMITED - AND - MANDATE DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Ms Doyle Worker Member: Mr Nash |
1. Non-payment of second phase Transitional Agreement and changes to Uniform Allowance
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company is a privately owned retail clothing company which employs 1,100 non-management workers of whom approximately 190 are members of the Union. The dispute concerns two issues - the non-payment of the second phase of Towards 2016/Transitional Agreement October, 2009 (T16) and a reduction in the level of uniform allowance (from 75% to 60%) to employees from May, 2009. The Union claims that no real discussion took place between the parties and that the Company, in effect, imposed both decisions.
The dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commission (LRC) and a conciliation conference took place. As the parties did not reach agreement, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 24th March, 2010, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 10th August,
2010, in Kilkenny.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Company did not plead inability to pay in regard to the non-payment of T16. It justified its decision due to "unprecedented difficult trading condition." However, despite the current difficult economic climate the Company remains profitable (details supplied to the Court).
2. It is a condition of employment that employees must wear a business uniform. The reduction in the discount from 75% to 60% has put an additional cost on employees.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company informed the Union about both issues but received no real response. As a result it implemented both changes. The reason for pay pause is a dramatic fall in sales over the last 18 months. The Company has assured the Union that it is willing to enter into a pay review in January, 2011, following the current pay pause.
2. The Company deemed it appropriate to reduce the clothing allowance in order to help protect the business. The allowance of 60% remains competitive.
RECOMMENDATION:
Issue 1 - Payment of Second Phase of Towards 2016 Pay Agreement.
It is noted that the Company acted unilaterally in deciding not to pay the increases which fell due for payment under their Agreement in September and October 2009. It is noted that in other similar retail employments, arrangements were entered into with MANDATE and other Trade Unions in relation to the Agreement which had regard to the circumstances of those employers.
The Court recommends that the parties should now enter into serious and meaningful negotiations on the issue in dispute with a view to concluding an agreement in line with agreements reached with other retail establishments whose circumstances are similar.
These discussions should commence as soon as possible and should conclude within one month. If the dispute remains unresolved it may be referred back to the Court.
Issue 2. Uniform Allowance.
The Court recommends that the Uniform allowance be restored to the level which applied before the disputed change.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
24th August, 2010______________________
CONDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Ciaran O'Neill, Court Secretary.