Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD86979 Case Number: LCR11066 Section / Act: S67 Parties: ROCHES STORES - and - IDATU |
Payment for overtime worked by stock supervisors.
Recommendation:
5. The Court does not recommend concession of this claim.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr Collins Mr O'Murchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD86979 THE LABOUR COURT LCR11066
CC861115 INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR11066
Parties: ROCHES STORES LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATED UNION OF EMPLOYERS)
and
IRISH DISTRIBUTIVE AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRADE UNION
Subject:
1. Payment for overtime worked by stock supervisors.
Background:
2. It is normal practice for workers employed by Roches Stores
including all sales and clerical staff, and floor supervisors, to
receive payment for overtime worked at the request of the Company.
Stock supervisors of whom there are eleven in all, do not receive
any such payment. In June, 1985, the Union submitted a claim on
behalf of stock supervisors to the effect that, in common with
other workers employed by the Company, they should receive payment
for overtime worked at the Company's request at the appropriate
overtime rate. This claim was rejected by the Company, on the
grounds that the work in question was extremely limited in extent,
and was, moreover, part of the normal requirements of the job, and
was remunerated as part of the annual bonus paid to the staff in
question. The Union pointed out that the bonus referred to was
paid on a personal basis to each member of staff concerned, and
was designed to cover a number of matters other than overtime.
Since the bonus was not itemised, it was not possible to make sure
that each member was adequately compensated for overtime. The
Union suggested that, if the bonus did in fact include payment for
overtime, then this should be shown separately, so that all
concerned could be reassured that they were being adequately
compensated. This the Company declined to do, and the matter was
referred, by agreement, to the conciliation service of the Labour
Court. A conciliation conference took place on 15th November,
1985, at which no progress was made, and the Union reserved its
position. Further discussions took place with the Company with a
view to reaching agreement, and the Union formally confirmed a
revised claim to the Company on 13th May, 1986, which proposed
that an overtime premium should apply for any overtime worked in
excess of the following:-
- own departments for stocktaking
- 1 night for each of two sales
- 1 night for Christmas
This was rejected, and the Company in a letter to the Union dated
5th June, 1986 stated that "the salary paid to stock supervisors
adequately reflects the total responsibility for the position..."
On 27th June, 1986, the matter way referred to the conciliation
service of the Labour Court. A conciliation conference took place
on 3rd September, 1986, the earliest date convenient for the
parties. Agreement was not reached, and on 10th December, 1986,
the matter was referred to the Labour Court for investigation and
recommendation. A Court hearing took place in Cork on 25
February, 1987.
Union's arguments:
3. (i) The Union believes that stock supervisors, in common
with other staff employed by the Company, and
equivalent grades employed elsewhere in the
distributive trades, are entitled to payment for
overtime worked at the request of the Company.
(ii) The Union believes that, as it stands, the Company has
a completely free hand in determining the level of
overtime worked, and the compensation given for this.
Thus, for example, the number of sales per year could
be increased, or other special promotions could be
introduced, which would require additional overtime
without any additional remuneration. The Union
believes that this situation is quite unreasonable, and
that the staff concerned are entitled to a clear
statement of their position.
(iii) The Union believe that its proposal, which sets a limit
on the amount of overtime to be performed, after which
an overtime premium would apply, is reasonable and
should be accepted by the Company.
The Court is asked to recommend in favour of the
Union's proposals.
Company's arguments:
4. (a) As these positions are at management level and covered
by annual salary and bonus review, the Company takes
the total situation into account when adjusting salary
and bonus.
(b) The Company does not have a regular requirement for
stock supervisors to work hours in excess of their
normal weekly hours. The question of creating an
opportunity for additional earnings by way of overtime
on a weekly basis does not therefore arise. However,
this is what is implied in the Union's claim.
(c) There are 25 other stock supervisors employed at
various locations of the Roches Stores Group in the
country who operate on the same type of arrangement and
for whom the question of "overtime" does not exist
either. The Company operates on a consistent basis
with all its Group Stores and could not operate on the
basis of creating overtime when there is no regular
requirement.
(d) Stock supervisors who from time to time will have
additional hours to work are adequately compensated for
the total responsibility of the position and
consequently the Company rejects the claim for a change
in the present method of remuneration
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court does not recommend concession of this claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
___________________________
Deputy Chairman
6th April, 1987
P.F./J.C.