Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD89809 Case Number: LCR12834 Section / Act: S67 Parties: DENIS COAKLEYS LIMITED - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Claim on behalf of two retail assistants, a storeman/forklift driver and a lorry driver for an increase in rates of pay.
Recommendation:
5. The Court, having fully considered the submissions of the
parties and recognising the constraints of the Programme for
National Recovery, recommends that the parties, on the expiry of
the Drapery, Footwear, Furniture and Allied Trades Retail and
Wholesale Agreement on 30th September, 1990, discuss the
application of that agreement thereafter to the workers concerned
in this claim.
In the event the parties are unable to agree on any issue, the
Court recommends that such issue be referred back to the Court for
a recommendation.
Division: MrMcGrath Mr Keogh Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD89809 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12834
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: DENIS COAKLEYS LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATION OF IRISH EMPLOYERS)
AND
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim on behalf of two retail assistants, a storeman/forklift
driver and a lorry driver for an increase in rates of pay.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company operates from three locations, Cork, Clones and
Limerick. This dispute is confined to the Limerick branch. The
two retail assistants are employed in the Company's shop (Limerick
is the only location where a retail shop is operated) while the
other two claimants work in the wholesale hardware section. Their
current rates are as follows:-
Retail Worker 1 #163.00
Retail Worker 2 #153.00
Wholesale Worker #158.00
Lorry Driver #173.00
The Union is seeking relativity with the Company's three major
competitors, James McMahon, Morgan McMahon and Buckleys, for the
two retail staff, an increase to #222.73 per week for the
storeman/wholesale worker and an increase for the lorry driver to
bring him into line with the accepted rate in the region. The
Company has rejected the claims. As no local level agreement was
possible, the Union referred the dispute to the conciliation
service of the Labour Court on the 31st July, 1989. No agreement
was reached at a conciliation conference on the 3rd October
(earliest suitable date) and on the 6th November the matter was
referred to the Labour Court for investigation and recommendation.
The Court investigated the dispute in Limerick on the 31st
January, 1990 (earliest suitable date).
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The two retail staff are required to act as senior counter
assistants in serving customers, stock shelves, engage in book
work, make bank lodgements, be responsible for keys to open
and close premises and are expected to cover the Manager's
duties on his day off.
2. There is no comparison whatsoever between the claimants'
duties and those of their counterparts in comparable
companies. In those other companies, the duties are strictly
defined under different categories and attract separate salary
scales. No salary scale exists in the Company, (details
supplied to the Court).
3. There are very positive signs over the past two years that
the Company has increased its profits substantially. All the
predictions are very favourable at the present time and an
authoritative review of 1988 and 1989 by the Department of the
Environment estimated that output in the building sector is
likely to rise by 6% in the current year. Furthermore, the
Company has already extended its range of products to the
value of #160.000.
4. The substantial difference in the pay structure needs to
be reviewed as a matter of urgency. The co-operation of the
claimants up to the present time in terms of high productivity
and flexibility needs to be rewarded and acknowledged by the
Company as the first stage towards them achieving other
benefits enjoyed by the majority of workers such as sick pay,
uncertified sick leave and service pay entitlements.
5. The claimant in the stores/warehouse should have his pay
increased from #158 per week to #222.73. This claim is
justified because of the level of responsibility involved in
carrying out his duties which include complete charge of
stores, issuing of dockets and receipts, driving the forklift,
dealing with customers, loading and unloading and
responsibility for stock.
6. The Company has accepted that the wholesale department has
been very profitable over the years. There is an urgent need
for a proper definition of his duties. The knowledge and
expertise he has acquired needs to be rewarded as his rate is
completely out of line with that paid in comparable
employments in the area.
7. The lorry driver has been employed by the Company for over
17 years. His present weekly rate is #173 per week, which is
also out of line with the norm in the region. There is also a
need for a proper subsistence to cover expenses on long
journeys etc. Furthermore, with the expected increase in the
volume of the Company's business, the claimant will be
expected to continue to give the co-operation and extra
productivity he has given in the past.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The rates of pay applicable in the retail shop reflect a
development in pay which has been fair and reasonable since
they were agreed to in December, 1983 by the Union. There are
no similar comparators in either Cork or Clones.
2. The retail shop has been a significant loss maker since
1981. When meeting with the Union at conciliation on October
3rd, it was stated that the Company had budgeted for a loss of
#14,000 this year, but was expecting a likely loss in the
order of #17,000. The actual figure for year end at December
31st, 1989 now appears likely to be in order of #21,000.
Therefore, the Company is not in a position to offer increases
in pay, to the individuals employed in the retail shop, until
such time as the retail shop has returned to a profit.
3. The Company, to try and redress the losses in the retail
shop, invested #120,000 in working capital in order to broaden
the product range in an effort to attract more customers.
This has reflected itself in increased sales, but has not
reflected itself in any profit because of increased interest
costs and lower margins. As previously pointed out to the
Union in June, this is a source of considerable concern to the
Company and ought to be likewise to the Union.
4. The Company has followed the norm in regard to working
hours within the retail trade. It is prepared to accept that
in the context of improved economic circumstances, and a
return to a profit making situation, that the rates of pay for
the retail sales assistants would be brought into line with
the rates of pay for sales assistants within the Limerick
Distributive Trades.
5. The comparators put forward by the Union in terms of rates
of pay do not reflect the reality of the situation. The
Company is competing in the retail trade principally with J.
P. Newsom and W. Boyd & Company. Comparisons with McMahon
Group and Buckleys do not stand up to scrutiny, as the
majority of their business is in the wholesale building sector
while the Company is predominantly engaged in wholesaling to
the agricultural sector.
6. To offer increases in the wholesale sector, would not be
economical in the current circumstances, and would generate
anomalies elsewhere within the Group which would not be
acceptable to the Company.
7. The Company is prepared to agree to have the lorry driver
work normal hours of 9.00 - 5.30 with an hour lunch break. It
would then pay him overtime for hours worked in excess of 37.5
hours per week. This was implemented following the local
level meeting on June 28th 1989.
8. The Programme for National Recovery which is in effect
since January 1st, 1988, precludes claims of a cost increasing
nature.
4. 9. There is a contributory pension scheme in operation within
the Company which costs the employer 17.5% of pensionable
salary, in addition to the existing pay rates. Three of the
claimants are in the scheme.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court, having fully considered the submissions of the
parties and recognising the constraints of the Programme for
National Recovery, recommends that the parties, on the expiry of
the Drapery, Footwear, Furniture and Allied Trades Retail and
Wholesale Agreement on 30th September, 1990, discuss the
application of that agreement thereafter to the workers concerned
in this claim.
In the event the parties are unable to agree on any issue, the
Court recommends that such issue be referred back to the Court for
a recommendation.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court,
Tom McGrath
___23rd___March,___1990. ___________________
D. H. / M. F. Deputy Chairman