Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD87346 Case Number: LCR11278 Section / Act: S67 Parties: ROCHES STORES - and - ITGWU |
Claims on behalf of seven workers, arising from the closure of the Company's furniture department, as follows: (a) provision of helper on delivery van (b) retention of one employee in warehouse (c) compensation for loss of meal allowance (d) compensation for loss of overtime.
Recommendation:
5. Having considered the submissions made by the parties, the
Court recommends that in the particular circumstances of this case
the Company should offer and the Union should accept a once-off
lump sum payment of #1,000 to each of the 3 lorry drivers and 3
helpers involved in respect of their loss of overtime.
The Court does not recommend concession of the other claims.
Division: Mr Fitzgerald Mr McHenry Mr O'Murchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD87346 THE LABOUR COURT LCR11278
CC87539 INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR11278
PARTIES: ROCHES STORES (DUBLIN) LIMITED
(Represented by the Federated Union of Employers)
and
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
Subject:
1. Claims on behalf of seven workers, arising from the closure of
the Company's furniture department, as follows:
(a) provision of helper on delivery van
(b) retention of one employee in warehouse
(c) compensation for loss of meal allowance
(d) compensation for loss of overtime.
Background:
2. In early 1978, the Company decided to close its furniture
department, reorganise its Abbey Street warehouse and eliminate
its transport fleet. It was proposed that three drivers, three
van helpers and one warehouse worker should be transferred to
alternative work in the Company's Henry Street store. At a
meeting on 24th March, 1987, the Union made a number of claims as
set out hereunder.
Claim (a) - Provision of helper on delivery van
It is proposed to eliminate the current transport fleet but to
operate a smaller vehicle for city deliveries, to be operated by
the most senior driver, without a helper. The Union sought the
retention of a helper.
Claim (b) - Retention of one employee in warehouse
The Company's Abbey Street warehouse has previously been
permanently manned but the closure of the furniture department has
resulted in a decision by the Company that this is no longer
necessary. The worker who manned the store has done this work for
almost twenty years. He is due to retire in March, 1988. The
Company has given him alternative employment in Henry Street. The
Union sought his retention in the Abbey Street warehouse until his
retirement.
Claim (c) - Compensation for loss of meal allowance
Drivers and helpers have been in receipt of a lunch allowance of
#4 per day. A tea allowance of #3 was also paid if work extended
beyond 7 p.m. The meal allowance is now to be discontinued. The
Union sought compensation for its loss.
Claim (d) - compensation for loss of overtime
Drivers and helpers have been in receipt of frequent overtime on
delivery work. This is now discontinued. Some overtime will be
available in the alternative work area to which they have been
assigned. The Union sought compensation for the loss of overtime.
No agreement being reached at local level, the matters were
referred to the conciliation service of the Labour Court on 31st
March, 1987. A conciliation conference took place on 15th April,
1987. Again, no agreement was reached and the matters were
referred to a full hearing of the Labour Court. The hearing took
place on 5th June, 1987.
Union's arguments:
3. (i) The age and service profile of the workers concerned
(their service ranges from 12 to 38 years) shows that
they have collectively given long and loyal service to
the Company. The transfer to a completely different
working environment after so many years is a
deterioration in their working conditions and the
follow-on effect is a major loss of earning potential.
(ii) Claim (a) - Provision of helper on delivery van
The Union considers that the vehicle should be crewed
by the most senior driver and the most senior helper
for reasons of safety both of personnel and of the
vehicle and its contents. Other stores operate a
two-man crew on their transport fleets for reasons of
security.
(iii) Claim (b) - Retention of one employee in warehouse
The Union seeks the retention of this worker in
employment in the Abbey Street warehouse on a
"red-circled" basis, in view of his length of service
there and the short period of time until his
retirement. Since merchandise will still be stored in
the warehouse, there will be a need for someone to
open and close it for delivery and collection of
goods. The alternative employment offered is such
that the working environment will be changed to an
unacceptable degree.
(iv) Claim (c) - Compensation for loss of meal allowance
The Union considers that there will be a considerable
disimprovement in the conditions of employment of the
workers as a result of the discontinuation of meal
allowances which they have been in receipt of for
several years. Furthermore, the workers will no
longer have access to hot meals in the middle of the
day as these are not available in the staff canteen at
the Henry Street store where the workers will now be
located.
(v) Claim (d) - Compensation for loss of overtime
The Union estimates that the annual loss to the six
workers concerned is between #3,000 and #5,000 per
annum and considers that appropriate compensation
should be paid. This overtime was worked on a
constant basis and constituted a built-in element of
wages for many years. Its loss will give rise to a
major drop in living standards.
Company's arguments:
4. (a) It became necessary for the Company to close its
furniture, carpet and bedding departments, all of
which had become unprofitable due to a downturn in
trading for the following reasons:
- the recession in the building industry;
- high rates of VAT;
- many manufacturers selling direct to the public;
- the growth of DIY furniture retailers;
- widespread late night and Sunday trading by direct
competitors;
- the high cost of maintaining stocks, storage and
distribution of furniture, carpets and bedding.
This decision resulted in the closure of the Abbey
Street warehouse and the termination of deliveries for
furniture, carpet and beddings departments. The jobs
of the lorry drivers and helpers and of one worker in
the warehouse ceased to exist. The Company believed
that it had a responsibility to the staff directly
concerned and retained the staff in employment even
though declaration of redundancy would have been
appropriate. It believed that this was the most
appropriate, reasonable and responsible action to take
in view of the present employment prospects which
exist in the economy.
(b) Claim (a) - Provision of helper on delivery van
Previously, it was necessary for the Company to
maintain a number of lorries with drivers and helpers.
Those deliveries have now ceased and the only
deliveries made will be from a small vehicle
delivering small parcels and which will require only a
driver. There no longer exists a requirement for a
helper to assist in the delivery of furniture. In the
past both driver and helper had to leave the van
unattended for a much longer period than will now be
the case because of the smaller items to be delivered.
(c) Claim (b) - Retention of one employee in warehouse
It is not feasible to retain this worker in the Abbey
Street warehouse as it will either be sold or used
strictly as a lock-up store in which case there is no
requirement for an employee to be retained there on a
permanent basis. The worker concerned has been
offered alternative employment in the Henry Street
store.
(d) Claim (c) - Compensation for loss of meal allowance
Meal allowances were paid to drivers and helpers on
occasions when they were away from base on deliveries.
Over the years the Union has made the case that the
meal allowance was inadequate compensation for the
cost incurred when eating away from base, as opposed
to the facility of a subsidised canteen. There is now
no justification for the continuation of this payment.
(e) Claim (d) - Compensation for loss of overtime
Overtime was not guaranteed and was based on the
demands of the business. Drivers and helpers were in
receipt of overtime because of the nature of the
operation. Since it was not possible to predict at
the beginning of any delivery how long the
delivery would take. The loss of overtime in this
situation is a result of a downturn in trading and, as
such, comparisons with other situations may not be
valid. A degree of overtime will be required in the
alternative employment offered to the workers, based
on the needs of the business.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. Having considered the submissions made by the parties, the
Court recommends that in the particular circumstances of this case
the Company should offer and the Union should accept a once-off
lump sum payment of #1,000 to each of the 3 lorry drivers and 3
helpers involved in respect of their loss of overtime.
The Court does not recommend concession of the other claims.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
26th June, 1987 Nicholas Fitzgerald
A.K./P.W. Deputy Chairman