Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD90650 Case Number: LCR13157 Section / Act: S67 Parties: PENNY'S LIMITED - and - IRISH DISTRIBUTIVE AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRADE UNION |
Claim by the Union on behalf of 33 workers concerning compensation for the operation of new cash registers.
Recommendation:
5. Having considered the submissions of the parties and having
regard to the Mary Street agreement of 1987 which accepted that
the compensation paid was based on conditions unique to Mary
Street at that time, the Court is of the view that the situation
in Dun Laoghaire is not comparable and therefore does not justify
concession of the claim.
Division: CHAIRMAN Mr McHenry Mr Devine
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD90650 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13157
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: PENNY'S LIMITED
(Represented by the Federation of Irish Employers)
and
IRISH DISTRIBUTIVE AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRADE UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim by the Union on behalf of 33 workers concerning
compensation for the operation of new cash registers.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company wishes to update the cash registers in its Dun
Laoghaire branch. The Union argues that the new registers are a
form of productivity and that compensation should therefore be
paid. Employees in the Mary Street branch were, in 1987, paid
compensation for inconvenience due to construction work and for
the operation of new registers. The Comapny rejected the claim as
it regarded the new registers as a part of normal on-going change
and no payment had been made in any other store where new
registers were introduced. As agreement could not be reached
locally the matter was referred on 28th August, 1990, to the
conciliation service of the Labour Court. No agreement could be
reached at a conciliation conference held on 7th November, 1990,
(earliest date suitable to the parties), and the matter was
referred to the Labour Court for investigation and recommendation.
The Court investigated the dispute on 11th December, 1990.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. In September, 1987, the same operation took place in the
Company's Mary Street branch and compensatory payments were
made. The staff in the Dun Laoghaire branch feel that the
same principle should apply in Dun Laoghaire where conditions
are covered by the same registered agreement. The staff
concerned feel very strongly that they should be treated as
equals to the Mary Street staff and they have made it clear
that they will not operate the new registers until agreement
is reached.
2. From July, 1990 until recently the Company was engaged
in renovation work in the Dun Laoghaire branch which further
validates the comparison with the Mary Street branch. It is
accepted that this work was not as extensive as that
experienced in Mary Street, but it is an inconvenience which
continues. In the circumstances the Union believes that staff
in Dun Laoghaire should be compensated in the same manner as
the Mary Street staff.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. Since 1980, the Company has operated a productivity
bonus, which provides for the payment of 2 weeks basic pay to
staff each December in return for "full co-operation now and
in the future in the acceptance, implementation and operation
of new and improved systems in meeting the demands of the
business". This encompasses the up-dating of cash register
systems.
2. Changes in registers are an essential part of on-going
change in the retail trade. Unless they are changed from time
to time, they become inefficient and not only can the business
suffer but they can be a considerably frustration for staff.
The new registers actually provide many advantages for staff
compared to the old registers.
3. The Company has sought to fully address any concerns
raised by staff in operating the new registers. The Company
is also prepared to give a commitment that staff will not be
reduced from present levels arising from the introduction of
the new registers.
4. It is not the practice in the retail trade to compensate
staff for the up-dating of registers. The claim is contrary
to the "no further cost increasing claims" clause of the
Programme for National Recovery. Concession of the claim
could also lead to consequential claims within the Company as
new registers have been installed in many branches without any
compensatory payments.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. Having considered the submissions of the parties and having
regard to the Mary Street agreement of 1987 which accepted that
the compensation paid was based on conditions unique to Mary
Street at that time, the Court is of the view that the situation
in Dun Laoghaire is not comparable and therefore does not justify
concession of the claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Heffernan
16th January, 1991 ----------------
B O'N/U.S. Chairman