Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD87747 Case Number: LCR11547 Section / Act: S67 Parties: FRED HANNA LTD - and - ITGWU |
Claim for an increase in pay for one worker.
Recommendation:
The Court is of the view that the extra amount above scale paid to
the claimant from the 1/4/87 is a reasonable settlement of the
claim and should be accepted.
The Court so recommends.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Heffernan Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD87747 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR11547
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: FRED HANNA LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATED UNION OF EMPLOYERS)
AND
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim for an increase in pay for one worker.
BACKGROUND:
2. Fred Hanna Limited is a new and second-hand bookseller
operating in the Dublin area. It employs a total of forty
full-time staff. The worker concerned is employed as a dispatch
clerk/packer, and has a weekly rate of pay of #160.48. This is
equivalent to the maximum point of the Company's grade scale, plus
four pounds. The other grades, in ascending order are sales
assistant, assistant department head, and department head. The
Company sells books to "wholesale" customers (libraries, schools,
colleges, institutions, etc.) mostly by parcel delivery in
response to a postal or telephone order. Such 'wholesale' orders
are processed by a sales assistant and the order and delivery
docket are then kept in the dispatch department for processing.
The worker's job involves the checking of the order for
completeness and correctness, followed by packaging for delivery
to the customer. The Union, on behalf of the worker, claims that
he is underpaid and that the clerical staff grade maximum of
#178.30 per week is justified.
The Company rejects the claim. It contends that the worker is on
the correct rate for the job and it sees no merit in the workers
case for what it regards as special treatment. (From 1st April,
1987, the worker was paid #4 per week above the scale he was on,
in an attempt to settle the matter.) Agreement could not be
reached at local level, and on 11th August, 1987, the matter was
referred to the conciliation service of the Labour Court. A
conciliation conference took place on 28th September, 1987, the
earliest date convenient for the parties. Agreement was not
reached, and on 4th October, 1987, the matter was referred to the
Labour Court for investigation and recommendation. A Court
hearing took place in Dublin on 6th November, 1987.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. In theory, the worker in this case has the assistance of a
junior member of staff, who is invariably tied up with other
duties. The worker is currently paid the maximum of grade 1
in a four tier grading system. It is the Union's contention
that he is underpaid for the duties which he performs (details
supplied to the Court).
3. 2. Because of the nature of the business, the field of
comparisons is limited. However such comparisons as exist are
supportive of the Union's contention that the worker is
underpaid (details with the Court). The worker is paid #160
per week for a job embracing checking, packing, dispatching
to the Post Office, and ancillary duties. The equivalent rate
in competitor company A is #210.00 per week, and in company B
a job with a much less onerous range of duties has a rate of
#169.93 per week.
3. Even allowing for the fact that the rates of pay in
company A are generally higher if similar treatment were
afforded to the worker as to all other staff in his
work-place vis-a-vis the rates paid by the company's
competitors, then a rate of #178.30 per week is justified. In
conclusion, the Union believes that the value placed on the
work of the dispatch clerk/packer is seriously under-estimated
and the situation demands revision.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company genuinely believes that there is no basis in
the worker's claim for further pay improvement. Management
has been more than reasonable in attempting to meet his
enduring expectation of higher pay by assimilating him onto
the highest point of grade 1 and subsequently applying an
additional #4 per week to that rate. No other staff member
has received such favourable treatment.
2. Grade 1 is the appropriate grade for the goods outwards
post. The duties inherent in the post do not merit the
application of a higher grade. Essentially, the work
involves wrapping parcels, labelling same, and entering
addresses into the address book. The post does not involve
order picking - this is carried out by sales assistants.
3. The worker has suggested that in the past the Company
employed two packers. This however, is untrue. On average
the worker deals with twenty parcels per day which is not an
unreasonably onerous work-load.
4. There are two staff members engaged in goods inwards
duties. It cannot be argued by the Union that the worker's
duties are either more onerous or more responsible than
those associated with goods inwards. In fact the converse
is the case. There is greater responsibility attached to
the goods inwards post which involves the checking of
invoices with goods received, the correct pricing of books
received and the conversion of same to Irish pounds.
4. 5. At the conciliation conference on 29th September, 1987,
the Union advised that the worker believed the goods inwards
people were graded higher than he was. Management pointed
out that this was not the case and that both goods inwards
staff were on the appropriate point of grade 1. However,
the claim was not withdrawn in the light of this
information.
6. The agreed rates of pay applying within the Company are
not based on those applying within other booksellers. Also,
it is not sustainable to argue special comparisons in the
worker's case only, which the Company does not accept as
valid comparisons in any case.
7. The Company is currently operating within a very
competitive trade, and cost containment is essential. In
this context it would be imprudent to make concessions such
as those sought by the Union on the worker's behalf.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court is of the view that the extra amount above scale paid to
the claimant from the 1/4/87 is a reasonable settlement of the
claim and should be accepted.
The Court so recommends.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court.
Evelyn Owens
__26th__November,__1987. ___________________
P. F. / M. F. Deputy Chairman