Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD8925 Case Number: LCR12266 Section / Act: S67 Parties: GALLAGHERS DUBLIN LIMITED - and - MARINE PORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION |
Claim for a clothing allowance of #300 for sales representatives.
Recommendation:
5. Having considered the submissions made by the parties and
having regard to the nature of the jobs involved, the Court does
not feel that a case has been made which would warrant concession
of the Union's claim. However, the Court recommends that the
parties should discuss the question of the provision of coats as
suggested by the Company. The Court notes the Company's
willingness to consider the re-imbursement of expenses incurred
for damage caused to clothing in unexpected on the job
circumstances.
Division: Mr Fitzgerald Mr Heffernan Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD8925 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12266
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: GALLAGHERS DUBLIN LIMITED
and
MARINE PORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim for a clothing allowance of #300 for sales
representatives.
BACKGROUND:
2. As part of the negotiations on the 1988/'89 pay agreement, the
Union sought the introduction of a clothing allowance of #300 for
the sales representatives (the claim had originally been lodged in
1983). This was rejected by Management and on the 10th October,
1988, the matter was referred to the conciliation service of the
Labour Court. A conciliation conference on the 11th November
failed to resolve the issue and, on the 10th January, 1989, the
matter was referred to the Labour Court for investigation and
recommendation. A Court hearing was held on the 23rd January,
1989.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The claim for a clothing allowance was first made in 1983
when the claimants were becoming more involved in day to day
activities that required more physical contact with the
Company's products.
2. The claimants are required to handle stock and in many
cases to check stock levels. The latter duty entails having
to go into store areas and physically check what stocks are
available. This often leads to clothing getting dirty or
damaged.
3. Several companies provide their sales personnel with a
clothing allowance by way of either a weekly or annual payment
(details supplied to the Court).
4. The Company has consistently expected a high standard of
dress and presentation from the sales personnel but it is
becoming increasingly difficult for the claimants to maintain
the standards required and to meet the costs incurred.
5. The Company provides protective clothing to all other
categories, including its distribution staff who, like the
claimants, handle the Company's products and come into direct
contact with customers. These staff are issued annually with
the following:
- a suit
- a spare pants
- three shirts
- a tie
- an anorak
- a pair of shoes.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Union has argued that the principle of a clothing
allowance is now widely established in other employments.
While some few instances could be found where such a payment
is made, the Company's research does not bear out the Union's
contention that the practice is widespread in leading
companies (details supplied to the Court).
2. It has been argued by the claimants that the job of a
salesperson now requires more activities to be carried out
that might lead to clothing becoming soiled or dirty, e.g.
stocktaking in customers' storerooms, ensuring shelves are
correctly merchandised, etc. The Company does not accept that
the job of salesperson has significantly changed to include
more stocktaking or other duties that might damage or
disfigure clothing. It has always been justifiably proud of
the role its sales force members have been able to carry out
with customers in terms of stock control of Company products,
and erection of point-of-sale material. It is erroneous to
claim, however, that these duties are now carried out more
widely and in worse conditions than heretofore.
3. The Union has argued that the claim is for similar
treatment to that given to other groups of employees, such as
van crews. There is, however, a significant difference in
that van crews and security staff are the two staff groups
that are issued with uniforms, which they are obliged to wear
as part of their job. Protective overalls are also issued to
factory employees due to the nature of the work they do.
4. If the claim before the Court were successful, the Company
feels it could have serious additional repercussions with
other groups. All employees, for example managers or
administrative staff, are expected to maintain a high standard
of dress and appearance, but are not paid any additional
allowance to do so. If the sales force claim were accepted,
it would be difficult to resist further repercussive claims.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. Having considered the submissions made by the parties and
having regard to the nature of the jobs involved, the Court does
not feel that a case has been made which would warrant concession
of the Union's claim. However, the Court recommends that the
parties should discuss the question of the provision of coats as
suggested by the Company. The Court notes the Company's
willingness to consider the re-imbursement of expenses incurred
for damage caused to clothing in unexpected on the job
circumstances.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Nicholas Fitzgerald
________________________
7th February, 1989. Deputy Chairman.
D.H./J.C.