Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD87342 Case Number: LCR11281 Section / Act: S67 Parties: HACKETTS BOOKMAKERS - and - ITGWU |
Claim for improvement in pay and conditions.
Recommendation:
5. Having considered the submissions of the parties the Court is
of the opinion that the Company under the terms of its agreement
has done much to dispose of irregularities in its conditions. It
accepts the Company's contention that under the existing
management structure no grade of settler/manager is employed and
does not recommend concession of the Union's claim in this
respect. The Court does recommend that the Company's offer to
experienced settlers and experienced cashiers be adjusted upwards
by #5 per week in each case and that the offer so amended be
accepted by the workers concerned.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr Collins Mr Devine
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD87342 THE LABOUR COURT LCR11281
CC87285 INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR11281
Parties: HACKETTS BOOKMAKERS
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATED UNION OF EMPLOYERS)
and
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
Subject:
1. Claim for improvement in pay and conditions.
Background:
2. The claim concerns twenty staff members who are employed as
settlers, cashiers and trainees in the Dublin offices of the
business. The Union on behalf of the workers, served a claim on
the Company as follows:
(i) That the Company recognise a new grade of
settler/manager and that this grade be paid #210 per
week.
(ii) Other settlers should be paid #130.00 per week.
(iii) Experienced cashiers (i.e. those with more than one
year's service) should be paid #130.00 weekly. For
cashiers with less than a years service but with more
than 3 months the claim is #110.00 per week.
(iv) Trainees, those with less than three months service,
should be paid #100.00 per week.
The claim is retrospective from 1st November, 1986. The Union are
also requesting the Court to recommend that the Company commence
negotiations without delay on a Pension Scheme and Life Insurance
cover for its members in the Company's employment.
Up until now the amounts paid to each individual employee had
varied as had the method of payment. It was agreed by both sides
to regularise the position. The Company offered 3% on gross pay
effective from 1st March, 1987 for a twelve month period. In
addition, the following rates would apply -
- Experienced settler - #105.00 per week gross
- Experienced cashier - #90.00 per week gross
- Other/Trainee - #75.00 per week gross.
This was done on the basis that no worker would lose money as a
result of the introduction of these rates. If a worker's current
nett rates is greater than the above-mentioned rates (appropriate
rate for the job), then the current position would be grossed up
and the rate would be red-circled (frozen) until the rate for the
job catches up.
The offer was not acceptable to the Union.
Agreement could not be reached at local level, and on 14th
January, 1987, the matter was referred to the conciliation service
of the Labour Court. A conciliation conference took place on 16th
March, 1987. Agreement was not reached and on 23rd April, 1987,
the matter was referred to the Labour Court for investigation and
recommendation. A Court hearing took place on 19th May, 1987.
Union's arguments:
3. (i) The argument that the Company cannot afford rates of
pay adequate for the job is simply not sustainable.
During the course of negotiations another shop was
opened by the owners in Clonmel. The Union finds it
difficult to believe the figures produced by the
Company nor can it be moved by the implication that to
pay proper wages would result in the closure of some
shops.
(ii) The current wage levels are completely inadequate,
particularly those of the trainees and the Union is
asking the Court to endorse the rates of pay of Corals
one of the Company's competitors in the bookmaking
trade. No worker should be paid less than his current
rate of pay and any worker who is paid more than the
settler rate should continue to receive the higher
rate.
(iii) The Union is seeking recognition of the position of
settler/manager. The Company's argument that no one
has this responsibility is rejected as it is obvious
that each shop must have someone in charge. It is only
just that this individual should be paid the rate for
the job.
Company's arguments:
4. (a) An increase of 5% was applied on 1st March, 1986 for
a period of twelve months expiring on 28th February,
1987. Therefore the current agreement is due from 1st
March, 1987, and consequently the Company reject any
increase prior to that date. March has been used by
the Company as the review date since 1978.
(b) Hacketts are a small bookmaking concern who have to
compete in a very competitive market. This is
particularly evident by the takeovers in recent times
by the large U.K. Corals and Ladbrooks concerns. The
turnover of Hacketts shops is much lower when compared
to these. The average Hacketts shop only does 50% of
the slips of the average Coral shop. Some of the
Hackett shops are marginal and therefore would not be
viable if costs were increased significantly.
(c) The offer as outlined by the Company represents an
overall increase in its current costs of about 17%.
The average cost for a trainee goes from #50 to #75.00
(50%); for a cashier goes from #77.70 up #90.00 (13.8%)
and for for settlers #103.68 up to #105.00 (1.3%). Any
additional increase over and above this could
jeopardise the viability of certain shops. The
consumer price index is forecast to run at
approximately 3% over the duration of the proposed
agreement. Therefore the 3% increase on the wage round
as proposed by the Company is fair and reasonable.
(d) The organisational structure of Hacketts is such that
all management functions of individual shops is
controlled by the head office. Management capacity
exists in head office to fulfil this function,
therefore there is no requirement on individuals
working in these particular shops to have any
responsibility in relation to the overall running of
the shop. From an organisational point of view this
does differ from some of the structures in existence in
competitor companies. In these, managers are employed
in individual shops and receive remuneration based on
their responsibilities. It is not the intention of
Hacketts to create this type of structure.
(e) An individual is employed as either a settler or a
cashier. There is no combination of these positions.
Although it is conceivable that certain individuals may
be capable of fulfilling both functions, they are paid
the rate appropriate to the job which they perform.
(f) The Company, in view of the arguments outlined above,
requests the Court to recommend that the Company's
offer be accepted in full and final settlement of all
claims, and that there be no cost increasing claims for
the duration of the agreement.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. Having considered the submissions of the parties the Court is
of the opinion that the Company under the terms of its agreement
has done much to dispose of irregularities in its conditions. It
accepts the Company's contention that under the existing
management structure no grade of settler/manager is employed and
does not recommend concession of the Union's claim in this
respect. The Court does recommend that the Company's offer to
experienced settlers and experienced cashiers be adjusted upwards
by #5 per week in each case and that the offer so amended be
accepted by the workers concerned.
~ Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
26th June, 1987 ______________________
P.F./J.C.
Deputy Chairman