Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD91519 Case Number: INT912 Section / Act: S33(1) Parties: J. HOLLAND (HOISERY) LTD - and - IRISH DISTRIBUTIVE AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRADE UNION |
Application by the Union for an interpretation under Section 33 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1946 as to whether or not a worker is covered by the Registered Employment Agreement(R.E.A.) covering Dublin and Dun Laoghaire Footwear Drapery and Allied Trades.
Recommendation:
The Court has carefully considered the submissions made by the
parties at the hearing.
The strict definition of the term chargehand relied upon in the
main by the employer to argue that the registered agreement does
not apply to a worker who in the J. Holland organisation is
designated as assistant manageress does not entirely convince
the Court.
Whilst the designation does not appear to exist in the majority
of major stores mentioned in the course of the hearing it does
seem to the Court that the differences in the specific duties
between staff designated as assistant department managers or
chargehand in department stores derives from the type of
commercial organisation concerned. The Assistant Manageress in
J. Holland Ltd. performs duties which reasonably could be
expected of the person of the rank immediately superior to a
shop assistant in a shop of similar size.
By this definition the Court is satisfied that the appellant was
a "chargehand" under the terms of the Registered Employment
Agreement and entitled to the level of payment specific for that
job.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr Keogh Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD91519 INTERPRETATION NO. INT291
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
INTERPRETATION OF DUBLIN AND DUN LAOGHAIRE FOOTWEAR DRAPERY AND
ALLIED TRADES REGISTERED EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT
UNDER SECTION 33(1) OF THE INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1946
PARTIES: J. HOLLAND (HOISERY) LTD
(Represented by Gerrard Scallan and O'Brien Solicitors)
and
IRISH DISTRIBUTIVE and ADMINISTRATIVE TRADE UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Application by the Union for an interpretation under
Section 33 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1946 as to whether
or not a worker is covered by the Registered Employment
Agreement(R.E.A.) covering Dublin and Dun Laoghaire Footwear
Drapery and Allied Trades.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker was employed as a sales assistant from 7th
October, 1986 until 1st May, 1988 when she was promoted to
assistant manageress, a position she held until she was made
redundant on 1st July, 1991.
The Union contends that the worker was covered by the Registered
Employment Agreement and that even though she was given the title
of assistant manageress her duties were that of a chargehand.
The Company disputes the claim and alleges that the worker in
her capacity as assistant manageress had greater
responsibilities and duties than that of a chargehand. The
Company claim that the worker was outside the scope of the
Agreement.
In September, 1991 the Union sought an interpretation under
Section 33(1) of Industrial Relations Act, 1946 of the
Registered Employment Agreement (Dublin and Dun Laoghaire
Footwear, Drapery and Allied Trades). A Labour Court hearing
took place on 18th November, 1991.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS
3. 1. In various stores covered by the Agreement there are
different titles given to different grades of staff.
Though the titles may differ from store to store, the
duties performed are functions common to a particular
type of worker. It is imperative therefore, in
determining whether or not a worker is covered by the
R.E.A., that the functions and not the title of the
worker be considered.
3. 2. The title "chargehand" was given to a worker who though
responsible for the work of others was not ultimately
responsible for the running of a store. In this case the
worker was employed in a small outlet and as is common in
such outlets greater duties fall to assistants in
comparison to their equivalent grades in a large
department store. In general, however, the duties can be
compared to that of an Assistant Departmental Manager in
a large store.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS
4. 1. The definition of a "chargehand" is "a workman in charge
of a job" or "a workman in charge of a gang of men".
The worker's duties and responsibilities were much
greater than those pertaining to a chargehand. In the
absence of the Manager the worker was solely responsible
for the running of the shop including all paperwork,
cash transactions and all staff matters.
4. 2. In larger department stores the work of an Assistant
Departmental Manager could be compared with that of a
chargehand. In such a store an Assistant Departmental
Manager would not take over if a Manager was absent.
Therefore a comparison cannot be drawn between the duties
of the worker concerned and those of an Assistant
Departmental Manager.
DECISION:
The Court has carefully considered the submissions made by the
parties at the hearing.
The strict definition of the term chargehand relied upon in the
main by the employer to argue that the registered agreement does
not apply to a worker who in the J. Holland organisation is
designated as assistant manageress does not entirely convince
the Court.
Whilst the designation does not appear to exist in the majority
of major stores mentioned in the course of the hearing it does
seem to the Court that the differences in the specific duties
between staff designated as assistant department managers or
chargehand in department stores derives from the type of
commercial organisation concerned. The Assistant Manageress in
J. Holland Ltd. performs duties which reasonably could be
expected of the person of the rank immediately superior to a
shop assistant in a shop of similar size.
By this definition the Court is satisfied that the appellant was
a "chargehand" under the terms of the Registered Employment
Agreement and entitled to the level of payment specific for that
job.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
5th December, 1991
A.S./N.M. ---------------------
Deputy Chairman