Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD89646 Case Number: LCR12679 Section / Act: S67 Parties: BRITISH HOMES STORES - and - IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION |
Dispute concerning manning levels for portering staff.
Recommendation:
5. The Court has considered the submissions made by the parties.
In the light of these and in particular the acknowledged downward
trend in the level of business being done, the Court is of the
opinion that the Union's claim for an increase in the existing
level of staff cannot be sustained. The Court therefore does not
recommend concession of the Union's claim.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr Collins Mr O'Murchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD89646 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12679
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: BRITISH HOMES STORES
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATION OF IRISH EMPLOYERS)
and
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning manning levels for portering staff.
BACKGROUND:
2. There are currently five full-time porters in the Company's
O'Connell Street branch (two receiver checkers, two general
porters and one maintenance porter). A full-time general porter
was dismissed in May, 1988 and the Company decided not to replace
him, opting instead to take on temporary staff when additional
manpower was required. The Union is seeking to have the vacancy
filled on a full-time basis to bring the numbers back up to six.
The Company has rejected this. Local discussions failed to
resolve the issue and it was referred to the conciliation service
of the Labour Court on the 24th May, 1989. A conciliation
conference held on the 5th September (earliest suitable date)
failed to resolve the dispute and the matter was referred to the
Labour Court for investigation and recommendation. A Court
hearing was held on the 17th November, 1989.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Company has the smallest complement of general
distribution workers in any of the drapery stores in Dublin
despite the store size being equivalent to the others in the
immediate area.
2. Since the dismissal of the porter in May, 1988, the
Company has diversified and broadened its range of goods for
sale by opening two new departments (Mothercare and Habitat).
This has resulted in major additional throughput of stock and
has significantly increased the claimants' workload.
Furthermore, the non-filling of the vacancy on a permanent
basis has caused major problems in respect of cover for
holidays and sick leave (details supplied to the Court).
3. For the past six years the Union has had to constantly
raise the problem of demarcation with Management. This
problem arises because of the continuous involvement of
members of another union in consistently carrying out duties
that are proper to the claimants. This also involves members
of Management. This issue highlights the fact that there are
insufficient porters employed.
4. Management's refusal to replace permanent positions left
vacant does not in any way reflect the spirit of the Programme
for National Recovery (P.N.R.) in respect of the maintenance
of job numbers.
5. The Court is requested to recommend that the staffing
level of the claimants is maintained at a level that ensures
their ongoing permanent jobs and the replacement of vacant
positions to ensure that undue pressure is not exerted on
them.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. In order to remain competitive efforts are being made
throughout the Company to contain and reduce costs wherever
possible. The Company has not recruited replacements on the
sales floor, on the display staff or amongst the office staff.
Management and head office staff are also affected. In no
area of the store are people being replaced automatically.
Each situation is judged on its merits and the needs of the
business.
2. One of the underlying reasons for this dispute is the
claimants' concern that the Company is attempting to eliminate
this category of staff. This is not the case as the Company
is committed to the employment of general workers in adequate
numbers to meet its trading needs.
3. The needs of the business determines the manning levels
and Management must reserve the right to decide these levels.
This view was upheld by the Labour Court in L.C.R. 12373.
4. Management has given assurances that at busy times it will
continue to employ temporary staff or give additional hours to
Saturday staff. Management has continuously monitored the
trading environment to ensure that staffing levels are
appropriate so that the level of service to customers is
maintained.
5. Since the conciliation conference the Company has
organised meetings with the porters to help alleviate their
concerns. As a result of these meetings changes have taken
place in fixtures and fittings, sending much of the
non-essential fixtures to the outside warehouse and
re-organising the available space to best suit the porters.
The Company feels that these changes and the channels of
communication now set up should address many of the porters'
concerns.
6. The Company contends that given its current trading
circumstances, its position on manning levels is reasonable.
The Company would therefore request the Court to uphold this
position and to recommend that in normal commercial
employment, the level of staffing is determined by the level
of business.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court has considered the submissions made by the parties.
In the light of these and in particular the acknowledged downward
trend in the level of business being done, the Court is of the
opinion that the Union's claim for an increase in the existing
level of staff cannot be sustained. The Court therefore does not
recommend concession of the Union's claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
_________________________
11th December, 1989 Deputy Chairman.
D.H./J.C.