Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD90162 Case Number: AD9028 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: QUINNSWORTH - and - IRISH DISTRIBUTIVE AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRADE UNION |
Appeal by the Company of Rights Commissioner's recommendation No. CW 30/90 concerning the rate of pay of a cleaner.
Recommendation:
I recommend that the worker accepts that her rate of pay is
appropriate and, subject to the note above, is not
comparable to the Shop rate, and that the Company pays to
her a once-off lump sum of #750 in respect of acting-up
duties in the past in full settlement of this dispute."
(The worker was referred to by name in the Rights Commissioner's
recommendation). The Rights Commissioner's recommendation was
rejected by the Company who appealed it on 2nd April, 1990, to the
Labour Court. The Labour Court heard the appeal on 19th June,
1990, in Cork.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. It is normal practice to pay cleaning staff the Joint
Labour Committee rate for cleaners. The worker here-concerned
is paid in excess of this and her rate compares favourably
with other rates in the Company's stores.
2. At the Rights Commissioner's investigation the Union
claimed that the worker had not been paid the canteen rate
when she had relieved in the canteen for a period of a year.
The Company accepted that she would be entitled to the canteen
rate for this period. The Rights Commissioner made his
recommendation in the belief that this claim by the Union was
correct. The Company have since discovered that the worker
was in fact paid the appropriate canteen rate for the one year
period in question. The Rights Commissioner based his
recommendation on incorrect information and it must therefore
be set aside.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The worker concerned spends on third of her working week
on canteen duties, the balance being spent on cleaning duties.
She also takes over canteen duties when the only canteen
worker is out sick or on holidays. She should, therefore, be
paid appropriately.
2. The Rights Commissioner recommended that she should be
paid a once-off lump sum of #750 in recognition of acting-up
duties undertaken in the past and that she be paid the
appropriate rate for any time in the future during which she
is the principal canteen worker. The Union reluctantly
accepted this.
DECISION:
5. The Court, having heard the submissions in this case, upholds
the Rights Commissioner's Recommendation as equitable in all the
circumstances.
The Court so decides.
Division: CHAIRMAN Mr Collins Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD90162 DECISION NO AD2890
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1969
SECTION 13(9)
PARTIES: QUINNSWORTH
and
IRISH DISTRIBUTIVE AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRADE UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Appeal by the Company of Rights Commissioner's recommendation
No. CW 30/90 concerning the rate of pay of a cleaner.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker concerned has been employed in the Company's Wilton
branch (Cork) since August, 1980. She works 32 hours per week and
her duties include cleaning and assisting in the canteen. Her
current hourly rate is #3.38. The Union claimed that the worker
should be on the scale for shop assistants (#4.33 per hour)
because this rate is applied to canteen staff. The Union believes
that the higher rate should apply because the worker concerned is
available for and used for canteen duties for approximately one
third of her working week. She also stands in for the only other
canteen worker during holidays and sickness. This deputising
included a period of a year in the recent past. The Company
rejected the Union's claim and the matter was referred to a Rights
Commissioner for investigation. On 12th March, 1990, the Rights
Commissioner issued the following findings and recommendations.
"FINDINGS:
I do not accept that there is necessarily any logic to
connect the worker's rate with that of Stores Assistants on
an incremental rate. The recent Company decision to concede
the equivalent incremental scale to whole time canteen
persons does establish some form of link with some of the
worker's duties, some of the time. I note the Company
commitment to pay the worker in the future at the
appropriate store's rate for any period to time during which
she is the principal canteen worker.
RECOMMENDATION:
I recommend that the worker accepts that her rate of pay is
appropriate and, subject to the note above, is not
comparable to the Shop rate, and that the Company pays to
her a once-off lump sum of #750 in respect of acting-up
duties in the past in full settlement of this dispute."
(The worker was referred to by name in the Rights Commissioner's
recommendation). The Rights Commissioner's recommendation was
rejected by the Company who appealed it on 2nd April, 1990, to the
Labour Court. The Labour Court heard the appeal on 19th June,
1990, in Cork.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. It is normal practice to pay cleaning staff the Joint
Labour Committee rate for cleaners. The worker here-concerned
is paid in excess of this and her rate compares favourably
with other rates in the Company's stores.
2. At the Rights Commissioner's investigation the Union
claimed that the worker had not been paid the canteen rate
when she had relieved in the canteen for a period of a year.
The Company accepted that she would be entitled to the canteen
rate for this period. The Rights Commissioner made his
recommendation in the belief that this claim by the Union was
correct. The Company have since discovered that the worker
was in fact paid the appropriate canteen rate for the one year
period in question. The Rights Commissioner based his
recommendation on incorrect information and it must therefore
be set aside.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The worker concerned spends on third of her working week
on canteen duties, the balance being spent on cleaning duties.
She also takes over canteen duties when the only canteen
worker is out sick or on holidays. She should, therefore, be
paid appropriately.
2. The Rights Commissioner recommended that she should be
paid a once-off lump sum of #750 in recognition of acting-up
duties undertaken in the past and that she be paid the
appropriate rate for any time in the future during which she
is the principal canteen worker. The Union reluctantly
accepted this.
DECISION:
5. The Court, having heard the submissions in this case, upholds
the Rights Commissioner's Recommendation as equitable in all the
circumstances.
The Court so decides.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court,
Kevin Heffernan
___10th____July,____1990. ___________________
B. O'N. / U. S. Chairman