Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD88690 Case Number: LCR12084 Section / Act: S20(2) Parties: POWER SUPERMARKETS LIMITED - and - IRISH NATIONAL UNION OF VINTNERS, GROCERS |
Claim, on behalf of approximately 1,000 sales staff for a productivity payment.
Recommendation:
5. Having considered the submissions made by the parties the
Court takes the view stocktaking is a normal part of shop staffs'
duties. Since additional hours worked by shop staff, as a result
of the disbandment of the Audit teams, of themselves result in
increased earnings, the Court does not consider the Union case to
be sustained. The Court does not therefore recommend concession
of the Union's claim.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr McHenry Mr O'Murchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD88690 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12084
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 20(2)
PARTIES: POWER SUPERMARKETS LIMITED
(QUINNSWORTH)
AND
IRISH NATIONAL UNION OF VINTNERS, GROCERS
AND ALLIED TRADES ASSISTANTS
SUBJECT:
1. Claim, on behalf of approximately 1,000 sales staff for a
productivity payment.
BACKGROUND:
2. Prior to August, 1977 the Company employed two stocktaking or
audit teams, a total of twenty five people, based in Dublin and
Cork. These teams carried out stocktaking duties in the Company's
stores throughout the country. In August, 1987, the Company
announced its intention to make these stocktaking staff redundant
and to place responsibility for stocktaking on sales staff in the
various stores. Following local level discussions and referral to
the Labour Court, these redundancies were effected. The Union
sought a productivity payment to the sales staff in return for
taking on the stocktaking work. The Company was not prepared to
make any such payment and the matter was referred, on 30th June,
1988, to the conciliation service of the Labour Court. A
conciliation conference was held on 23rd July, 1988, at which no
agreement was reached and the matter was referred to a full Court
hearing. The hearing took place on 30th September, 1988.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. There is an ongoing saving to the Company of approximately
#500,000 per annum as a result of the redundancies of the
audit teams. As the work of these teams is to be
redistributed amongst the sales staff, the Union considers
that a portion of this cost saving should be allocated to the
sales staff.
2. Since 1973 the function of stocktaking has been the sole
responsibility of the audit teams, with some limited
assistance from sales staff by agreement. No stocktaking was
completed without the involvement of the audit team.
3. The sales staff are now taking on an addition to their
workload and responsibility not previously proper to their
grade. They are not willing to do so without agreement on
productivity.
4. The Union quantifies its claim as a once-off payment of
#250 net plus an increase in annual leave entitlement from 22
to 24 days.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. Traditionally in the retailing and supermarket industry
branch staffs carry out stocktaking. This is the practice of
the Company's main competitors and the disbandment of the
audit teams simply brought this Company into line. The
decision also reflects the Company's policy of allocating
maximum possible resources to support retailing, its primary
activity. Thus, branches which are not viable can be afforded
the opportunity to achieve viability, thereby avoiding closure
or loss of employment.
2. Stocktaking is an integral part of the duties of branch
staffs. They carried out stocktaking duties before and
concurrent with the existence of the audit teams.
3. Additional hours are worked in the branches when
stocktaking is carried out. Full-time staff have the
opportunity to work overtime at the agreed rates. Pro-rata
part-time staff have the opportunity to work extra hours.
There is no increase in productivity on the part of the
claimants. The Company, for these reasons, rejects the claim.