Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD87684 Case Number: LCR11526 Section / Act: S67 Parties: ROCHES STORES - and - CORK OPERATIVE BUTCHERS SOC. |
Change in work practices at the Company's Wilton store in Cork.
Recommendation:
5. The Court is not satisfied that the amount of extra work
required to be carried out by the claimants warrants any
additional remuneration or additional staff and accordingly does
not recommend concession of the claim.
Division: Ms Owens Mr McHenry Mr O'Murchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD87684 THE LABOUR COURT LCR11526
CC87890 INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR11526
Parties: ROCHES STORES
(Represented by the Federated Union of Employers)
and
CORK OPERATIVE BUTCHERS' SOCIETY
Subject:
1. Change in work practices at the Company's Wilton store in
Cork.
Background:
2. There are four employees working in the meat department of
Roches Stores, Wilton, a buyer and three butchers. In February,
1987 the meat department was asked to handle poultry. This was
seen as a change in work practice by the employees who refused to
handle it with the exception of the chargehand who agreed to
handle the poultry pending discussions on the matter. In the
course of local level discussions, the Union sought a return to
the pre February position or payment of an additional #42 per week
to the four individuals concerned or the employment of an
additional butcher. The Company was not willing to concede the
claim. The matter was referred, on 3rd June, 1987, to the
conciliation service of the Labour Court. No agreement was
reached at a conciliation conference held on 8th July, 1987 and
the matter was referred to a full hearing of the Labour Court.
The hearing took place on 20th October, 1987, in Cork.
Union's arguments:
3. (i) There is an average monthly throughput of #25,000 worth
of poultry in the store. The handling of this involves
quite an amount of paper work and also some butchery
work, e.g. portioning, boning and rolling, not merely
the physical handling of goods. The Union will not
accept the imposition of new work practices without
prior negotiation and agreement.
(ii) The employment of an extra butcher or the payment of
extra wages to existing staff would be an additional
cost to the company. However, the Union feels that
this could easily be sustained as the profit margin on
the #25,000 sales runs at a minimum of 15%.
(iii) Poultry is sold in most retail meat outlets but not
all. However there is no other retail outlet in Cork
with such a high turnover of meat in proportion to the
amount of butchers employed as in Roches Stores,
Wilton. Butchers in Roches Stores, Patrick Street,
Cork, do not handle poultry.
(iv) While sales of red meat may be gone down at national or
local level this is not the case in this store.
Company's arguments:
4. (a) Poultry was transferred from the provisions department
to the meat department because of a decline in the sale
of red meats and because it would strengthen the meat
department. Integrated meat and poultry sales are now
a common feature. Rationalisation of products and
lines is a necessary part of a Department Store
operation and many examples of this exist.
(b) The current situation with regard to poultry is that
the meat buyer orders the products. He is responsible
for buying the poultry, overseeing the operation and
completing the documentation. On delivery, the goods
are checked in at the Goods Inwards Section. They are
then put on sale by the Supplier. Chickens are
predominantly prepacked and the majority of sales are
on a self service basis. A sales assistant who had
handled the chickens in the provisions department now
does the same work in the meat department i.e. to
ensure that an adequate supply of poultry is on sale at
all times, to serve customers and to portion poultry
when requested by customers. Assistance is also
available from general assistants when requested.
The Butchers are required to assist the customers in
the absence of a Sales Assistant from the counter which
should be a rare occurrence since relief cover is
provided. The actual input by the individuals
concerned in the present claim is minimal. It is not
the Company's intention to have butchers handling
poultry excessively as this would not be the most
effective use of their skills and time.
(c) There is no justification for the claim for an extra
#42 per week. Since the Sales Assistant who originally
handled the poultry has transferred to the meat
department there is no increase of any significance in
the work load to warrant such an increase. The poultry
operation is predominately a self-service one. The
Sales Assistant is also available to assist with the
sales of other meat products in this department and is
therefore of further assistance to the butchers. The
buyer/butchers in Roches Stores are paid at a rate
which is higher than the butchers rate applying in the
city. They also benefit from being members of a large
department store. Staff in other departments do not
have adjustments in their pay as a result of the
introduction or deletion of new lines. The
buyer/butchers are adequately compensated for their
overall responsibilities. No other butchery staff have
received any payment in the Roches Stores Group for the
transfer of the poultry operation.
(d) There is no justification, in the circumstances, for
the employment of an extra butcher.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court is not satisfied that the amount of extra work
required to be carried out by the claimants warrants any
additional remuneration or additional staff and accordingly does
not recommend concession of the claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Evelyn Owens
13th November, 1987 -------------
A.K./U.S. Deputy Chairman