Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD90624 Case Number: AD9061 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: TYLER (IRE) LIMITED - and - IRISH DISTRIBUTIVE AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRADE UNION |
Appeal by the Union against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation No. BC176/90 concerning a pay claim on behalf of a manageress.
Recommendation:
7. The Court considers that the recommendation of the Rights
Commissioner is in respect of the individual claim presented to
him. It need not, therefore, be taken by either party as setting
down a precedent for future pay rates and relativities.
Having considered the submissions from the parties the Court finds
no evidence on which it could justify altering the Rights
Commissioner's recommendation.
The Court accordingly upholds the Rights Commissioner's
recommendation and rejects the appeal.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Brennan Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD90624 APPEAL DECISION NO. AD6190
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 13(9)
PARTIES: TYLER (IRE) LIMITED
(Represented by the Federation of Irish Employers)
and
IRISH DISTRIBUTIVE AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRADE UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Appeal by the Union against Rights Commissioner's
Recommendation No. BC176/90 concerning a pay claim on behalf of a
manageress.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker concerned commenced employment in the Company in
1986 and in 1987 was appointed as relief manageress in Dun
Laoghaire. In May, 1988, she was appointed manageress in Dun
Laoghaire. The Union claimed that the worker's rate of pay was
not appropriate to her grade or in line with the responsibility
involved and that it should be increased from #145.55 per week to
#162 per week. The Company offered the worker an increase of #5
per week backdated to December 1988. This was rejected by the
worker and the matter was referred to the Rights Commissioner's
Service for investigation and recommendation. A Rights
Commissioner investigated the dispute on 1st January, 1990 and
issued the following recommendation-
"In light of the above I recommend that the worker
accept the offer by management to improve her salary by
#5 per week effective from December 1988. I further
recommend that the trade union suspend the pursuit of
its claim until the results of the general manager's
review are completed and made known. Of course, should
there be any further difficulty arising from this
review and its implications I should be quite prepared
to make myself available if this is deemed by both
parties to be of assistance".
(The worker and general manager were referred to by name in the
recommendation).
3. The #5 increase was applied to the worker's salary and the
Company subsequently carried out a review of the worker's salary
in line with this recommendation and as part of a total review of
salaries of all store managers. On 6th July, 1990 the Company
wrote to the Union and informed it that the Company's view was
that the worker's salary was correct. This was unacceptable to
the Union on the basis that sales staff are paid up to #155.07 per
week plus commission or #174.33 on the non-commission rate, while
this worker's rate of pay as a store manager was only #150.55 per
week. The matter was then referred back to the Rights
Commissioner for investigation and recommendation. The Rights
Commissioner investigated the dispute on 5th October, 1990 and
issued the following recommendation-
In the light of the submissions made and in the context of my
recommendation No. BC234/89 I find that the obligation
imposed upon the employer in accepting that recommendation
was to conduct and complete a review of salaries and
expenditure with regard to the store in question. Evidence
was given to me at the hearing that this review had been
completed by the general manager, it was his conclusion that
in the light of the turn-over of the store and the
performance of the worker no additional increase was
warranted. I have no evidence at all that in conducting this
review and in coming to these conclusions that the general
manager had acted in any fashion other than a totally
dispassionate one.
In light of the above I must uphold the Company's position
and therefore the claim by the Trade Union must fail.
(The worker and general manager were referred to by name in
the recommendation).
4. On 30th October, 1990 the Union appealed the recommendation
to the Labour Court under Section 13(9) of the Industrial
Relations Act, 1969. The Court heard the appeal on 7th
December, 1990.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
5. 1. The review that took place was almost ten weeks later
than agreed and it was decided that the worker's rate of pay
was correct at #150.55 per week for a store manager, despite
the fact that sales staff are paid up to #155.07 per week
plus commission or #174.33 on the non-commission rate
(details supplied to the Court). The worker never received
the correct rate of pay for the job to which she was
appointed. As Relief Manager from November, 1987 and as
Manager from May, 1988 to August, 1990 (when she left the
Company) the worker completed two years and nine months on
the incorrect rate of pay.
5. 2. The Rights Commissioner has effectively endorsed a
sales rate of pay for managers which will doubtless be used
to justify and continue the illogical practice of paying
managers a basic rate of pay which is lower than that earned
by some of their own sales staff. The Rights Commissioner's
Recommendation sets a dangerous precedent in the area of
managers' wages. The Court should recommend payment of
#1,500 to the worker as compensation for the incorrect rate
of pay she received.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
6. 1. The Company undertook a review as required by the
original Rights Commissioner's Recommendation and as part of
a total review of salaries of all store managers. In its
review the Company took into account the performance of the
Dun Laoghaire store and the fact that the worker's basic
salary was in line with stores of similar turnover
nationwide (details supplied to the Court). The Company
implemented the PNR with effect from 1 November, 1989 thus
bringing the worker's basic from #150.55 to #154.76 per week.
2. In addition to basic salary, the worker received 1.25%
commission on her sales plus a bonus related to the store
turnover. Her average earnings for the period January to
July, 1990 were approximately #191 per week. In March, 1990
the worker was offered a manageress' position in Mary Street
which she declined. This offer would have led to an increase
in salary due to the higher turnover of this store. The
Company sees no basis for adjusting the Rights Commissioner's
Recommendation and it should be upheld.
DECISION:
7. The Court considers that the recommendation of the Rights
Commissioner is in respect of the individual claim presented to
him. It need not, therefore, be taken by either party as setting
down a precedent for future pay rates and relativities.
Having considered the submissions from the parties the Court finds
no evidence on which it could justify altering the Rights
Commissioner's recommendation.
The Court accordingly upholds the Rights Commissioner's
recommendation and rejects the appeal.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Evelyn Owens
20th December, 1990 ---------------
U.M./M.O'C. Deputy Chairman