Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD8870 Case Number: LCR11750 Section / Act: S67 Parties: ROCHES STORES - and - CORK OPERATIVE BUTCHERS' SOCIETY |
Claim for a higher rate of pay for a worker.
Recommendation:
6. In view of the circumstances of this case and the manner in
which the "plus payments" arose the Court does not recommend
concession of the claim.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Shiel Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD8870 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR11750
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: ROCHES STORES
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATED UNION OF EMPLOYERS)
AND
CORK OPERATIVE BUTCHERS' SOCIETY
SUBJECT:
1. Claim for a higher rate of pay for a worker.
BACKGROUND:
2. This claim concerns a worker employed by the Company as a
butcher at its shop in Patrick Street, Cork. On 1st February,
1984 a new basic rate was introduced for the existing qualified
butchery staff. Staff up to then whose earnings exceeded the new
basic retained the excess as a personal plus payment. A similar
change in the method of remuneration had been made in 1982 in the
case of sales and clerical workers.
3. The worker concerned earns between #6.58 and #8.23 less than
his colleagues. In the Autumn of 1987 the Society claimed that
the worker be given a personal plus payment. The Company rejected
the claim. No agreement was reached through local negotiations
and on 4th November, 1987 the matter was referred to the
conciliation service of the Labour Court. A conciliation
conference was held on 26th January, 1988 but no agreement was
reached. On 28th January, 1988 the case was referred to the Court
for investigation and recommendation. A Labour Court hearing was
held on 2nd March, 1988 in Cork.
SOCIETY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. No agreement was entered into on the bonus issue in 1984.
The Society challenges the Company to produce a copy of same.
The Company may argue that the house committee agreed to the
new structure. However, the Society states that all
agreements are concluded with the Company through the
Society's executive.
2. If members of the Society employed by the Company agreed
to changes in work practices they had no right to do so. The
Company is aware of this position.
3. There appears to be peculiar circumstances surrounding
this case. Notwithstanding this, the fact remains that the
worker is paid less than his colleagues. This situation
should be rectified.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
5. 1. The worker's earnings on 1st February, 1984 did not exceed
#146.78 which was the new basic rate. Therefore he was not
entitled to a personal plus payment. This was evident at the
time of the agreement of 1984 and consequently it was stated
very specifically and was accepted by the butchers at the
time.
2. The Society stated it was not consulted about the
agreement of 1984 and that therefore the agreement did not
have the authority of the Society. The Company does not
accept this because the butchers sought the exact application
of the change in the method of remuneration as had taken place
with the sales and clerical staff.
3. Personal plus payments are an historical residue of a now
defunct method of remuneration. All butchers in the Company
are now paid a common basic. All overtime is based upon this
common basic only.
4. Any change in the worker's rate would have a major cost
implication for the entire group as it would put aside the
principle of the retention of personal rates.
5. The Company is concerned with the implications of this
claim on other stores in the group, in particular the Wilton
store in Cork which has the exact same remuneration
arrangement as applies to the worker.
6. At the time of the introduction of the new rate in 1984
the other butchers in the Patrick Street store earned in
excess of the new rate. It was agreed that they were entitled
to retain that difference.
7. There is a fundamental difference between retaining a
personal rate and the establishment of a new basic rate for
one worker.
RECOMMENDATION:
6. In view of the circumstances of this case and the manner in
which the "plus payments" arose the Court does not recommend
concession of the claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court.
Evelyn Owens
___________________
18th March, 1988
T. O'M. / M. F. Deputy Chairman.