Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD86995 Case Number: LCR11051 Section / Act: S67 Parties: QUINNSWORTH LTD - and - IDATU |
DEPUTISING ALLOWANCES
Recommendation:
5. The Court, having considered the submissions made by the
parties, recommends that the Union should accept the Company's
offer to extend the differential to the claimants in specific
instances of absences of a week or more and that this should be
applied retrospective to 1st October, 1986.
Division: Mr Fitzgerald Mr McHenry Mr Devine
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD86995 THE LABOUR COURT LCR11051
CC861667 INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
RECOMMENDATION NO. 11051
Parties: QUINNSWORTH, LONGFORD
and
IRISH DISTRIBUTIVE AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRADE UNION
Subject:
1. Claim on behalf of two staff (one in the office and one on the
shop floor) for payment of deputising allowance.
Background:
2. A differential of 7.50% above the agreed rate of pay is paid to
some workers in the store in positions of responsibility. Among
these are the positions of senior office clerk and that of
supervisor. The Union, in 1986, sought to have an on-going
allowance paid to workers who deputise for those who have extra
responsibility in particular two named individuals who deputise on
a regular basis, for the senior office clerk and a supervisor on
the shop floor, during lunch breaks, days off, etc. The Union
sought a percentage of the 7.50% differential on the basis of the
average time spent deputising. The claim was rejected by the
company at local discussions and was referred, on 10th October,
1986, to the conciliation service of the Labour Court. A
conciliation conference took place on 11th December, 1986. The
Company indicated a willingness to extend the differential to the
two deputising staff in instances of absence over a full week,
such as holidays and sick leave. It was not willing to grant an
on-going deputising allowance. No agreement was reached and the
matter was referred to a full hearing of the Labour Court. The
hearing took place on 17th February, 1987, in Longford.
Union's Arguments
3 (i) The workers concerned have been deputising for their
supervisors for some years and are quite capable of
performing all duties. This has been proven during
periods of absence due to holidays and illness. They
deputise each week during days off, lunch and tea breaks
and late night trading. During such periods the
deputising worker has the same responsibility as the
person for whom she is deputising.
(ii) The assistant supervisor performs many of the duties of
the supervisor on the shop floor, while the supervisor is
engaged in paper work. This activity continues
throughout the day with the assistant seldom consulting
the supervisor even if problems arise. Similarly, in the
office, the "number two" completes all duties. Even when
acting together with the "number one", the work is
totally shared - each worker being capable of and
involved in all operations.
(iii) The Union would give favourable consideration to any
proposal for the payment of some differential, which
would reflect the average time spent by these workers
deputising during the working week.
(iv) Management has stated that it has afforded an opportunity
to staff members to train in these positions in order
that they would be prepared to apply for such vacancies
as might arise, either within the branch or elsewhere.
However, the workers concerned have spent a number of
years deputising and have filled in quite competently
during lengthy periods. Management has acknowledged that
their performances at such times have been satisfactory
and that they will continue to require them to deputise
in the future.
Company's Arguments
4 (a) The Company has never paid deputising allowances in the
cases concerned. Responsibility in instances of
deputising does not rest with the deputising worker.
(b) The Company is prepared to pay the differential in
instances of deputising for a period of a week's absence
or more.
(c) The Company considers that affording staff the
opportunity to fill in for persons in positions of
responsibility is part of its on-going training and
development policy which ensures that staff are available
for promotion to positions of responsibility when the
vacancies arise. This process gives staff the
opportunity to develop their confidence and skills so
that they will be ready for promotion when the
opportunity arises.
Recommendation:
5. The Court, having considered the submissions made by the
parties, recommends that the Union should accept the Company's
offer to extend the differential to the claimants in specific
instances of absences of a week or more and that this should be
applied retrospective to 1st October, 1986.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Nicholas Fitzgerald
23rd March, 1987 ___________________
AK/PG Deputy Chairman