SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
TJX IRELAND UC
(REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION)
- AND -
(REPRESENTED BY MANDATE TRADE UNION)
Chairman: Mr Haugh
Employer Member: Ms Connolly
Worker Member: Ms O'Donnell
1. Pay, security of hours for staff, staff rotas.
2. This dispute concerns the Union's claim for the introduction of banded hours, a pay scale for members, and staff rota arrangements. The Union referred this claim to the Labour Court on 8 November 2016 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 27 January 2017. The Employer declined to attend the hearing.
3. 1. The Union is seeking that the Employer introduces a Banded Hours/Certainty of Earnings arrangement for their staff.
2. A pay scale should be introduced for the Union’s members that is reflective of what is currently in place throughout retail, and that in doing so, the current members will not be negatively impacted financially as a result.
3. The Union is seeking that the current staff rota arrangements that have been introduced by management, i.e. rotas being displayed two weeks in advance, are implemented as a minium. Furthermore, any changes by management to the said rotas should not be allowed, unless such changes are agreed with staff members at least 48 hours in advance.
Background to the Dispute
The dispute relates to certain terms and conditions of Mandate members employed by the Respondent at its Arklow store. The Union is seeking (a) the introduction of a banded hours arrangement so that workers can have a greater degree of certainty in relation to their earnings from week to week; (b) the introduction of a pay scale for retail assistants; and (c) the formalisation of the new arrangement whereby staff rosters are published 2 weeks in advance along with a commitment from management that the no change will be made to the roster without prior consultation with the member(s) concerned.
The Union has unsuccessfully attempted to engage with local management in relation to these issues. It also referred the matter to the WRC but the Respondent declined to attend. The Respondent likewise declined to attend the hearing before the Court but did inform the Court in writing (through IBEC) prior to the hearing that it has no recognition, collective bargaining other local relationship in place with Mandate.
Having considered the Union’s submission and the content of the Respondent’s letter to the Court dated 17 January 2017, the Court recommends that the Union set out in writing to the Respondent the aforementioned issues which are the subject of this dispute and invite the employer to formally engage with it in relation to them and with the assistance of the WRC, if necessary. In the event that the Respondent declines the Union’s invitation and/or no progress has been made between the parties within a period of six weeks from the date of this Recommendation, the Union may refer the matter back to the Court for a definitive Recommendation.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
30 January 2017______________________
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Michael Neville, Court Secretary.