Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD8864 Case Number: LCR11795 Section / Act: S67 Parties: EASONS CASH & CARRY (WHOLESALE) LIMITED - and - IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION |
Claim by the Union on behalf of 4 sales staff for the payment of a computer ancillary grade payment.
Recommendation:
5. The Court, having considered the submissions made by the
parties, and having visited the premises to see the operation in
progress, is of the view that the present arrangements are covered
by the agreement on replacement of cash registers which was
incorporated in the 24th Pay Round settlement. The Court,
therefore, does not recommend concession of the Union's claim.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr Heffernan Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD8864 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR11795
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: EASONS CASH & CARRY (WHOLESALE) LIMITED
and
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim by the Union on behalf of 4 sales staff for the payment
of a computer ancillary grade payment.
BACKGROUND:
2. In August, 1987, the Company replaced its existing cash
registers with keyboards linked to a computer in the Invoice
Office. During discussions with the Company on 9th October and
16th November, 1987, the Union claimed the payment of the computer
ancillary grade payment of #7.28 on the basis that the Company had
installed computers and not 'new machines linked to a computer.'
The Company rejected the claim as there is an agreement between
the parties dating from January, 1985, which stated:
"In particular, it was stressed that there should be no claim
now or in the future for payment of the Computer Ancillary
Equipment Grade when the Company replaces its existing cash
registers with new machines which will be linked to a
computer. The method of operation of the new machines will
be similar to the existing registers and there will therefore
be few consequential changes for their users. However, the
new machines will provide benefits to the Company in improved
information which will offset to some extent the extra costs
which are anticipated as the consequence of any reduction in
the working week."
On 2nd December, 1987, the dispute was referred to the
conciliation service of the Labour Court. As agreement could not
be reached at a conciliation conference held on 25th January,
1988, the matter was referred to the Labour Court on 26th January,
1988, for investigation and recommendation. A Court hearing took
place on 18th February, 1988. Subsequent to the hearing the Court
visited the Company premises on 31st March, 1988, to examine the
operations of the new machine in question.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The agreement referred to by the Company relates to the
24th Pay Round and refers to the operation of new machines
which will be similar to the existing registers. However,
they are not similar to the existing registers but are
identical computers to those operated by the office staff.
3. 2. Office staff who operate the computer receive, by
agreement, the computer ancillary grade payment. There is no
reason why the sales staff should not receive payment for
operating the same computer.
3. During discussions on the 24th Pay Round the Company
indicated that discussions would take place with the Union
regarding the type of machine to be introduced to replace the
existing cash register. These discussions never took place.
4. Until recently the sales staff were operating the
computers and using the old registers to hold the cash. The
Company has now installed a cash drawer underneath the
computer to hold the cash. The Union does not believe that
this can reasonably be called a cash register.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The sales staffs' work practices have not altered with the
introduction of the new cash registers. There is virtually no
difference from an operating point of view between the old and
new systems. Similar systems are fast becoming the norm in
comparable firms.
2. The Union in 1985, agreed that there would be no cost
increasing claims on the introduction of new cash registers.
Furthermore, there has been no reduction in staff numbers nor
will there be any reduction of numbers arising from the change
of register.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court, having considered the submissions made by the
parties, and having visited the premises to see the operation in
progress, is of the view that the present arrangements are covered
by the agreement on replacement of cash registers which was
incorporated in the 24th Pay Round settlement. The Court,
therefore, does not recommend concession of the Union's claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
_____________________________
14th April, 1988 Deputy Chairman.
B.O'N./J.C.