Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD87285 Case Number: LCR11348 Section / Act: S67 Parties: CLERY'S - and - INPDTU;UCATT |
Claim for payment of a differential and equalisation of hours of work.
Recommendation:
5. Having regard to the submissions made it seems to the Court on
the basis of the information provided that the claim for parity of
working hours with sales and clerical staff is well founded and
the Court recommends concession of this claim.
On the matter of parity of pay as between the craft workers the
Court accepts the Company's contention that such differences as
exist arise from valid historic circumstances and does not
therefore recommend concession of this element of the Unions'
claim.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr Collins Mr Devine
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD87285 THE LABOUR COURT LCR11348
CC87263 INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR11348
Parties: CLERYS AND COMPANY (1941) LIMITED
and
IRISH NATIONAL PAINTERS' AND DECORATORS' TRADE UNION
UNION OF CONSTRUCTION ALLIED TRADES AND TECHNICIANS
Subject:
1. (i) Claim for payment of a differential and equalisation of
hours of work.
Background:
2. The Company employs seven craftsmen and during the course of
discussions on the 26th pay round, the Unions raised the above
mentioned claim on behalf of one carpenter and two painters. The
Unions are seeking the elimination of the differentials which
obtain between these three men and the other employees in the
maintenance area. The three workers concerned are on the basic
rate of #166.73. The minimum being sought for them is the lowest
differential which applies to an electrician, i.e. #13 per week.
The Company would not concede the claim on the grounds that
workers, who were in receipt of the differential, were entitled to
them for sound historical reasons.
The Unions also sought the application of the same lunch hours to
the maintenance staff as applies to staff in the rest of the
Company. At present, retail staff work a 37.50 hour week, and have
a one hour lunch-break. The maintenance section have a 40 hour
week and a .50 hour lunch break. The Unions contend that the same
conditions as apply to the rest of the workforce should apply to
the maintenance staff and that this was included in a national
agreement involving craftsmen and the F.U.E. in 1966. Agreement
could not be reached at local level, and the matter was referred
to the conciliation service of the Labour Court on 13th February,
1987. A conciliation conference took place on 1st April, 1987
(the earliest date convenient for the parties). No agreement was
reached and on 9th April, 1987, the matter was referred to the
Labour Court for investigation and recommendation. A Court
hearing took place in Dublin on 4th June, 1987.
Unions' arguments:
3. (i) The Unions are not claiming that plus payments do not
exist for such things as supervision, additional
skills, on-call arrangements etc. What the Unions do
object to however, is the arbitrary exclusion of some
workers from payments which are given to others. It is
objectionable that an employer can increase the rate of
some, while leaving others on the basic rate.
(ii) With regard to the duration of the lunch break - the
Unions note that all employees (with the exception of
seven craftsmen) enjoy a one hour lunch break. The
craftsmen only enjoy a half-hour lunch break. The
Unions are claiming the same lunch break as the
majority of workers, based on clause 8 of the
Maintenance Craftsmen's Agreement which states:
"Maintenance craftsmen shall be entitled to all
fringe benefits which apply to the general body of
manual workers in the firm in which they are
employed."
Company's arguments:
4. (a) From negotiations it would appear that the differential
being claimed on behalf of the workers concerned
results from a comparison between their rates of pay
and the rates of pay of two electricians and a plumber,
who for historic reasons, have carried differentials
related either to additional responsibilities and
duties in the case of the electricians, or as in the
case of the plumber, had worked for the Company on a
contract basis. The plumber was subsequently taken
into the Company's employment on special arrangements
which included a higher basic rate and the provision
that as he was required for hours in excess of a 40
hour week, a premium payment for overtime working would
not apply.
(b) In the course of negotiations, the Unions have claimed
that all categories of maintenance staff were on the
same rates of pay in 1983 and 1984, that these
differentials have emerged since that time and that
staff numbers in this area have dropped significantly
over the same period. On checking the Company's
records back as far as 1980, it has been established
that a number of different rates applied to maintenance
craftsmen at that time for reasons related to the
duties and responsibilities of the various categories
and such differentials and different rates have applied
over the years.
Furthermore it is pointed out that the full-time
permanent staff numbers in the maintenance areas have
been maintained over the same period notwithstanding
the fact that in all other categories of staff
throughout the Company significant reductions in
numbers have taken place.
(c) It is the Company case that the level of pay of #166.73
plus the application of an 11 day bonus results in a
reasonable and realistic rate of pay for the employees
in question and that their differentials or position
relative to other maintenance craftsmen both in Clerys
and in all other department stores has not deteriorated
over the years.
(d) It has been claimed on behalf of this group that the
working hours should be reduced from a 40 hour week to
a 37.50 hour week on the basis that other categories of
employees within the Company work a 37.50 hour week. It
is correct to say that the clerical and sales staff
operate a 37.50 hour week, but other categories of staff
continue to operate on a 40 hour week. In addition,
the maintenance staff employed in all the other major
department stores operate a 40 hour week and it is
unfair and unreasonable that the Company should be
singled out for such a claim by the maintenance unions
in this situation.
(e) The rates of pay and hours of work of the workers on
whose behalf these claims are made compare favourably
with maintenance craftsmen employed in the other
department stores in Dublin - indeed as far as the
Company is aware the hours of work are the same.
Comparisons made with other categories of employees in
the Company do not stand close examination. In all
other areas of the Company there have been significant
staff reductions, and in some cases productivity
payments have been agreed on foot of such staff
reduction. No such reduction has applied in the
maintenance area, despite the severe trading conditions
which have applied in Clerys and Company over recent
years. The Company requests that the Labour Court
recommend that the rates of pay and hours of work of
the employees in question are fair , reasonable and
equitable in all the circumstances.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. Having regard to the submissions made it seems to the Court on
the basis of the information provided that the claim for parity of
working hours with sales and clerical staff is well founded and
the Court recommends concession of this claim.
On the matter of parity of pay as between the craft workers the
Court accepts the Company's contention that such differences as
exist arise from valid historic circumstances and does not
therefore recommend concession of this element of the Unions'
claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
_________________________
Deputy Chairman
30th July, 1987
P.F./J.C.