Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD87682 Case Number: LCR11522 Section / Act: S67 Parties: MUSGRAVE CASH & CARRY - and - ITGWU |
Claims for (a) extra payment for coffee making duties and (b) incremental credit for one worker.
Recommendation:
9. The Court, having carefully considered the submissions made by
the parties, does not recommend concession of the claims.
Division: Mr Fitzgerald Mr Shiel Mr O'Murchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD87682 THE LABOUR COURT LCR11522
CC87717 INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
RECOMMENDATION NO. 11522
PARTIES: MUSGRAVE CASH AND CARRY LIMITED
(Represented by the Federated Union of Employers)
and
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
(Limerick No. 1 Branch)
Subject:
1. Claims for (a) extra payment for coffee making duties and
(b) incremental credit for one worker.
Background:
2. This dispute concerns the Company's Limerick premises. Local
level discussions failed to resolve the dispute and on the 24th
April, 1987, the Union referred the matter to the conciliation
service of the Labour Court. A conciliation conference was held
in Limerick on the 24th June (earliest suitable date) but no
progress was made and on the 8th September the claims were
referred to the Labour Court for investigation and recommendation.
A Court hearing was held in Limerick on the 13th October, 1987.
/....
Claim (a) - extra payment for coffee making duties
Background:
3. As part of its efforts to win business, the Company for the
past two years has provided coffee for its customers as a
welcoming gesture at the reception area. This service is provided
for eleven months of the year and is discontinued for the month of
December due to the volume of business at that time. The Union is
seeking an extra payment for its member for these duties.
Union's arguments:
4. (a) The Company introduced this service to customers
nearly three years ago without consultation with the
Union. The receptionist (and those on relief who
provide cover for meal breaks and in the event of
holiday and sick leave) was asked to provide this
extra service as part of her normal duties. She is
responsible for checking customers credentials,
dealing with enquiries plus the computerised system
installed by the Company.
(b) Those on duty at reception are expected to provide all
the essentials required, i.e. cutlery, biscuits, milk
and sugar etc. and customers have got so used to the
service that at times the claimants are pressurised
when they are attending to other duties. In addition,
they are required to record the amount of items used
daily and are expected to keep the area clean at all
times.
(c) The Company also provided a canteen for staff and
customers, run by contract, and have compensated the
person running it by #30 per week for loss of
business. The only ones not gaining from this
exercise are the claimants.
Company's arguments:
5. (a) The Company estimates that in a normal week the
overall function of supplying coffee accounts for some
three hours, or one half hour per day. The Company
recently undertook a sample survey to estimate the
utilised time and productivity factor of this
particular post. It was ascertained over a period of
time that, including the coffee making facility, the
receptionist is actively utilised for approximately
50% of her time. Were this low utilisation to be
discovered in either the office or the general floor
area, the Company would be forced to amalgamate
functions, resulting in a reduction of staff numbers.
(b) The introduction of this service was undertaken to
improve customer relations and to entice more
customers to come into the Cash and Carry. It is
therefore beneficial to both the Company and the
employees.
(c) To entertain a claim seeking additional payment for
this function would have far reaching effects, not
only with regard to the Limerick staff, but throughout
the Musgrave Group as a whole. Given the low
utilisation of this position, the Company is very
firmly of the view that offering additional service in
order to improve customer relations is in everybody's
interest and that therefore there is no basis for the
claim.
Claim (b) - incremental credit for one worker
Background:
6. In the early part of 1985 the Company proposed the
introduction of a salary scale for clerical staff. The worker
concerned was not, at that time, a member of the Union and was the
only employee on a wage below point 1 of the scale. The Company
say that even though she was not a member of the Union at the
time, the Union official negotiated on her behalf and agreed to
have her placed on the 3rd point of the scale with effect from
July, 1985. The Union disagrees with this view and it argues that
there was an anomaly in her position and that she should now be
getting #153.61 per week rather than #131.91. (Note: The Union
official involved in the original negotiations has since been
transferred).
Union's arguments:
7. (a) The worker concerned is employed in the clerical
section since September, 1982. Her duties include
general office work, finance in the cash office, stock
checks, pricing orders and reception duties when
required. She had reason to go on maternity leave and
was replaced by someone who had just left school but
had two weeks' experience as a receptionist in a
hotel. When the claimant returned to work her
replacement was retained in a permanent position by
the Company. Following agreement with the Union on
the introduction of the salary scales, the replacement
employee went to the agreed point of the incremental
scale which was #148.18, whereas the claimant was put
on #126.48, a differential of #27.13.
(b) Not being aware of the agreement, the claimant
accepted the Company's proposals, put to her by the
financial controller. The Company has argued that
this was done by agreement with the then Union
official but the Union rejects this. It is of the
view that as she was not a Union member at the time of
the agreement, Management used this to its own
advantage.
(c) The Union cannot support a situation where an employee
with five years' service is being paid less than
employees with three years' service. Concession of
this claim will not lead to repercussive claims as all
other employees are receiving their proper increment.
Company's arguments:
8. (a) The worker concerned was not a member of the Union at
the time of the negotiations on the introduction of
the salary scales. However, her case was discussed as
she was a member of the clerical staff and the Union
official at the time felt it was important, as did the
Company, that the position of every member of the
clerical staff be considered so as to avoid any
inequity.
(b) At the time the scales were being negotiated, she was
on a weekly wage of #94.66 and had been in the
Company's employment for two years. She moved to
point 3 of the scale on the 1st July, 1985, as agreed,
(#106.77 p.w.) and is presently on point 5.
(c) Increases in her rate of pay between the date of the
discussions on the 20th March, 1985, and the 1st July,
1987, (expiry of the 26th wage round), is 39.3%. This
compares with an average increase in this category of
slightly below 19%.
(d) Should anything be conceded on this claim it could
have a serious knock-on effect for the other clerical
staff, resulting in serious consequences for all the
administrative staff in the unit.
RECOMMENDATION:
9. The Court, having carefully considered the submissions made by
the parties, does not recommend concession of the claims.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
12th November, 1987 Nicholas Fitzgerald
D.H./P.W. Deputy Chairman