Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD89181 Case Number: LCR12365 Section / Act: S67 Parties: TWIL LTD - and - IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION |
Increase in pay for head warehouseman.
Recommendation:
Having considered the submissions made by the parties, the Court
does not recommend the increase in salary claimed by the trade
union. The Court, however, considers that the claimant is
entitled to some compensation for his co-operation in carrying out
additional duties during the prolonged absence of the manager.
The Court, therefore, recommends that the Company should offer and
the claimant accept the payment of a bonus of #500 per annum as
from the first anniversary date of the manager's absence until his
return.
Division: Mr Fitzgerald Mr McHenry Mr O'Murchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD89181 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12365
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: TWIL LTD
(Represented by The Federated Union of Employers)
and
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Increase in pay for head warehouseman.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company provide a warehousing and distribution service and
also engage in the marketing of packaging products and machinery.
3. In 1984 the worker concerned with this claim was appointed as
head warehouseman. In 1986 a supervisor in the store area went
out on sick leave and has not resumed work to date although he is
still on the Company's books and is in receipt of sick pay. In
November 1988, a claim for a wage increase of #25 per week in
respect of the head warehouseman was lodged by the Union. The
claim was attributed to the increased workload and
responsibilities of the head warehouseman. The Company rejected
the claim and the matter was then referred to the Conciliation
Service of the Labour Court. A conciliation conference held on
21st February, 1989 failed to resolve the dispute and a full
Labour Court hearing was requested by the Union. The Company
agreed and the Court investigated the dispute on 13th April, 1989.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The main basis of the claim is that for the past three
years the claimant has experienced a significant increase in
both his workload and responsibilities. Three years ago four
staff were involved in the administration/supervisory area of
the warehouse operation. One person was laid off and the
manager went out on sick leave and has not yet returned. Many
of his duties and responsibilities have fallen to the
claimant. Some of these extra duties include - customer
enquiries, analysis of transbound products and stockchecks.
In addition the claimant assumes responsibility for the
warehouse when the other manager is out.
3. 2. The claimant has also had to contend with the
introduction of a teleprinter which resulted in changes in the
system of administration. He also has had to contend with
other changes such as (I) changes in customer requirements and
(II) the preparation of previous day's documentation so that
it reaches the Director by 10.00 a.m. each morning.
3. The claimant is prepared to do extra duties on a
temporary basis if someone is absent due to illness and if
there is a realistic view that the person will be returning to
work. This is unlikely to happen in this particular case
because of the nature of the medical problem.
4. The present working arrangement is suitable to the
company and is costing it nothing but it is at the expense of
the claimant doing more work and having extra
responsibilities. These changes justify a wage increase for
the work concerned.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company and Union agreed the terms of the Programme
for National Recovery for a three year period commencing 1st
May, 1988. No claim was lodged or reference made to the
claimant's increased workload at these negotiations. The
claim is in breach of the agreement between the company and
union and is in contravention of clause 4 of the Programme for
National Recovery. Any concession of the claim could promote
unjustified claims from other employees. The company cannot
afford to concede this claims nor can it pass on any increases
to its customers.
2. Substantial pay increases would greatly undermine attempts
to retain existing contracts and efforts to secure new
contracts in a competitive market. In the late 1970's the
company had over thirty contracts and operated five warehouses
now it only has six contracts and one warehouse.
3. The range of duties carried out by the claimant are
fully in accordance with his contract of employment (details
supplied). The claimant's workload has not increased during
the past five years - two major warehousing contracts were
lost. The company had to face severe competition from
existing and new competitors during this period.
4. The company cannot see any valid reason why the claim
should be conceded and requests that the Company and Union
agreement i.e. the terms of the Programme for National
Recovery be upheld by the Court.
RECOMMENDATION:
Having considered the submissions made by the parties, the Court
does not recommend the increase in salary claimed by the trade
union. The Court, however, considers that the claimant is
entitled to some compensation for his co-operation in carrying out
additional duties during the prolonged absence of the manager.
The Court, therefore, recommends that the Company should offer and
the claimant accept the payment of a bonus of #500 per annum as
from the first anniversary date of the manager's absence until his
return.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Nicholas Fitzgerald
28th April, 1989 -------------------
A.McG/U.S. Deputy Chairman