Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD87658 Case Number: LCR11491 Section / Act: S67 Parties: BOYER & CO LTD - and - IDATU |
Dispute concerning: (a) reduction of part-time hours and breaking of service, (b) rates of pay for holiday workers, (c) rota of days off for some part-time staff and staff discount for non-seasonal part-time workers, (d) canteen workers.
Recommendation:
15. Having considered the submissions made by the parties, it
appears to the Court, that in view of the employment policies
already practiced by the Company that formalised terms such as
sought by the Union would serve no useful purpose. The Court does
not, therefore, recommend concession of claims (a) and (c).
The Court further does not recommend concession of the Union's
claims on behalf of holiday workers or canteen staff.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr McHenry Mr O'Murchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD87658 THE LABOUR COURT LCR11491
CC861866 INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR11491
Parties: BOYER & COMPANY LIMITED
and
IRISH DISTRIBUTIVE AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRADE UNION
Subject:
1. Dispute concerning:
(a) reduction of part-time hours and breaking of service,
(b) rates of pay for holiday workers,
(c) rota of days off for some part-time staff and staff
discount for non-seasonal part-time workers,
(d) canteen workers.
General Background:
2. No agreement was reached on these issues through local
negotiations and on 10th November, 1986 the matter was referred to
the conciliation service of the Labour Court. A conciliation
conference was held on 24th February, 1987 but no agreement was
reached. On 10th July, 1987 the Union requested a full Court
hearing on the issues. On 31st August, 1987, following the
Company's agreement to a referral, the case was referred to the
Labour Court for investigation and recommendation. A Labour Court
hearing was held on 12th October, 1987.
(a) reduction of part-time hours and breaking of service
Background:
3. This claim concerns fifteen part-time workers. The Union is
claiming that any reduction in hours or breaking of service in
respect of part-time workers should be the subject of formal
Company/Union talks before such measures are implemented. The
Company rejects the claim mainly on the basis that the terms of
such employment are explained and understood by the workers at the
commencement of their employment.
Union's arguments:
4. (i) It is practice in the Company to reduce weekly working
hours and to break the service of some part-time
workers from time to time without any consultation,
discussions or even notification to this Union. A
reduction in working hours is very serious in terms of
the Social Welfare stamp and the Social Welfare
benefits available to a worker whose working hours are
reduced. The Union proposes that negotiations take
place before such a reduction is implemented. The
Company is not agreeable to such a proposal and they
insert clauses in the contract of employment which
allows them to change hours of work.
(ii) The Union understands that the nature of the retail
trade sometimes dictates the unfortunate necessity to
change a part-time workers hours on occasion. However,
there must be an opportunity to discuss and hopefully
agree such changes.
(iii) The same arguments apply to the Company's practice of
breaking the service of part time workers but in these
circumstances the repercussions are much more serious
in that an employers entitlements under the Redundancy
Payments Acts or the Unfair Dismissals Act, can be
reduced or eliminated altogether. Therefore,
Union/Company exchanges are essential before such
action is taken by the employer.
Company's arguments:
5. (a) Due to the demands of its business the Company decided
to reduce the amount of time worked during Monday -
Friday from 4 hours to 3 1/2 hours and increase the
amount of time worked on Saturday from 4 hours to a
full day. For the majority of employees this resulted
in an increase in hours worked from 20 hours per week
to 21 1/2 hours per week. Only three people reduce
their total hours to 17 1/2 hours worked each week
because a full day each Saturday did not appeal to
them.
(b) In the Company there are two categories of part-time
employees as there are two categories of full-time
employees, i.e.
(a) Continuous or permanent full-time/part-time and,
(b) Temporary full time/part-time.
Temporary employees, both full-time and part-time are
engaged to cover such period as sales, holidays,
absenteeism etc. The need to employ these people is
determined by the trading pattern in particular
departments and when the specific needs have been met
then these employees are given the appropriate notice.
This cyclical pattern is long established and the terms
of such employment are explained and understood by
these employees at the commencement of employment.
Claim (b) rates of pay of holiday workers
Background:
6. The Union is claiming that the rate of pay for holiday workers
should be in line with the Dublin and Dun Laoghaire Drapery
Trade Registered Agreement wage rates. The Company rejects the
claim.
Union's arguments:
7. (i) The Dublin and Dun Laoghaire Drapery Trade Registered
Agreement lays down wage rates for the trade. However
the Company has an additional wage rate for holiday
workers. Such a rate seriously undermines the existing
agreed rate and the Drapery Trade Agreement itself, by
paying a lesser rate to people involved in sales work.
The Union condemns this breach of the Registered
Agreement by the Company and requests that the Court
recommends that the Agreement be honoured by the
Company in that they should pay the full agreed rates
(plus commission) to all workers engaged in sales work.
Company's arguments:
8. (a) The rate of pay for holiday workers is set by reference
to the first year of pay which applies to sales
trainees. Sales trainees would typically be school
leavers with Leaving Certificate standard of education
who wish to pursue a career in retailing. These
positions are full-time and serve as a training ground
for our future permanent staff. It is appropriate
therefore, to set rates for people employed on a
seasonal and irregular basis significantly below this
first year rate.
(b) Student workers are employed on a casual basis at
holiday periods - typically they are aged 16 and not
yet finished full-time education. Their duties cover
such things as keeping department stock tidy during
sales, keeping order in some fitting room areas,
assisting the sales people in a variety of tasks such
as: stock, checking and paperwork. The rates vary from
a minimum of #57.50 to a maximum of #80.00 depending on
age. These rates are for working a 37.50 hour week and
compare very favourably with other similar employments.
Occasionally where a student employee might be with the
Company for a second stint or where his duties might be
extended, due to his familiarity with the Company,
he/she is paid the first year sales trainee rate.
Claim (c) rota of days off for some part-time staff and staff
discount for non seasonal part-time workers
Background:
9. The Union is claiming that part-time workers be included in
the rota of days off applicable to full-time staff in a five day
week. The Company rejected the claim.
Union's arguments:
10. (i) Some part-time workers in the Company work five days
per week but they are not included in the rota of days
off applicable to full time staff who also do a five
day week. These workers should be on the rota.
(ii) In addition to the days off issue, most part-time staff
do not receive discount on staff purchases. Full-time
staff and some part-time staff do receive staff
discount. There is no valid reason to treat part-time
staff any differently to their full-time colleagues.
It is anomalous to give discount to some part-timers
and not to others.
Company's arguments:
11. (a) Part-time workers are employed specifically to cover
the busy periods in our trading pattern. Consequently
the key times at which they must be in attendance are:
lunch hours and Saturdays. Saturday is the Company's
busiest trading day and in order to provide a proper
service to customers the Company must have maximum
staffing. Therefore it requires as a condition of
employment that they work Saturdays as part of their
normal working week.
(b) Eligibility to apply for staff discount is open to all
employees who fulfill certain conditions, primary among
which is the condition that they must be on the
permanent staff. This rule applies to both full-time
and part-time staff and we do not consider it
reasonable or practicable to extend this concession to
temporary employees, involving as it does a detailed
process of checking on credit rating, obtaining
guarantees and a fair amount of administration.
Primarily we resist the request to extend the privilege
on the basis that there should be a differentiation in
terms of benefits between temporary and permanent
employees.
Claim (d) canteen workers
Background:
12. The Union is claiming that the merit bonus paid to restaurant
workers should be paid to canteen workers also. The Company
rejects the claim.
Union's arguments:
13. The Company has informed the Union that the workers in the
canteen receive in excess of the hourly rate paid to similar
workers in the Company's restaurant. However, the workers do not
receive the merit bonus paid to restaurant staff. The Union is
seeking a recommendation that the canteen workers be paid the
#3.72 per week merit bonus.
Company's arguments:
14. (a) The terms and conditions of employment applying to
canteen workers does not include the provision of food
as part of their contract. The dispute here arises
over a comparison being drawn between canteen employees
and restaurant employees, the latter being entitled to
'food' as part of their normal remuneration. When
holiday pay is calculated for these employees a
corresponding 'food element' is included.
(b) The canteen is run by a committee as an independent
unit - the food is bought exclusively by the staff for
the staff - it is not provided by the Company. Wages
are paid and the premises supplied by the Company. The
food is not supplied by the Company as a normal part of
the package for Canteen employees, thus the claim to
have it allowed in calculating holiday pay rests on a
false premise. In addition canteen employees enjoy a
higher rate of pay than restaurant employees.
RECOMMENDATION:
15. Having considered the submissions made by the parties, it
appears to the Court, that in view of the employment policies
already practiced by the Company that formalised terms such as
sought by the Union would serve no useful purpose. The Court does
not, therefore, recommend concession of claims (a) and (c).
The Court further does not recommend concession of the Union's
claims on behalf of holiday workers or canteen staff.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
__29th___October,__1987. ___________________
T. O'M. / J. C. Deputy Chairman