Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD90707 Case Number: LCR13217 Section / Act: S67 Parties: PAVILLION STORES LIMITED - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Claim by the Union concerning:- (1) Proficiency pay for 7 van drivers. (2) Wage increase for 2 clerical workers. Claim (1) Proficiency Pay:
Recommendation:
CLERICAL WORKERS:
8. Having considered the submissions of the parties and the
additional arguments put forward at the hearing, the Court does
not consider that the technology introduced by the Company is
significantly different from that commonly in use in the
distribution trades and therefore does not find grounds to
recommend pay increases by way of parity with H.B.
DRIVERS:
PROFICIENCY PAYMENT:
9. The arguments advanced at the hearing did not convince the
Court that agreed parity with H.B. extended beyond basic pay,
commission and meal-allowances. There was evidence that other
peripheral payments made by H.B. did not apply and both sides
accepted that there was an absence of parity in other significant
conditions of employment. In the circumstances the Court does not
recommend concession of proficiency payments.
Division: CHAIRMAN Mr McHenry Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD90707 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13217
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: PAVILLION STORES LIMITED
(Represented by the Federation of Irish Employers)
and
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim by the Union concerning:-
(1) Proficiency pay for 7 van drivers.
(2) Wage increase for 2 clerical workers.
Claim (1) Proficiency Pay:
BACKGROUND:
2. In 1979 an industrial dispute took place in the Company. The
resolution of the dispute provided for a parity of the basic rate
with van salesmen in Hughes Brothers, Dublin, (H.B.). This parity
was subsequently extended to meal allowance and commission as part
of specific agreements. On 9th February, 1990, the Union claimed
that proficiency pay ranging from #2.50 per week in year one to
#10.27 per week in year five, which was being paid to van salesmen
in H.B. should be paid to the Company's van drivers. The Company
rejected the claim contending that parity existed only in relation
to basic rates, meal allowance and commission and that other
conditions are not on a par with H.B., Agreement could not be
reached locally. On 23rd April, 1990, the matter was referred to
the conciliation service of the Labour Court. No agreement was
reached at conciliation conferences held on 14th June, 1990 and
2nd November, 1990. The matter was referred to the Labour Court
on 5th December, 1990, for investigation and recommendation. The
Court investigated the dispute on 6th February, 1990, in Galway.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. Despite the label 'proficiency pay' there was nothing
required of the salesmen in return. The duties of van
salesmen in H.B. are almost identical to the duties performed
by the workers hereconcerned.
3. 2. The Union believes that full parity of conditions exists
with van salesmen in H.B. The Company has conceded parity on
meal allowances, basic pay, commission and annual leave.
Correspondence between the Company and Union indicates that
parity with H.B. exists (details provided to the Court).
3. The Union first raised this matter with the Company three
years ago. The Union seeks full retrospective payment of the
proficiency allowance to the date the matter was first raised.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company rejects the Union's claim on the basis that
full parity with van salesmen in H.B. does not exist. There
is parity on certain items, namely basic rates, commission and
meal allowance. Correspondence with the Union confirms that
this is the case (details provided to the Court).
2. The initial conciliation conference was adjourned to
allow the Union produce a document which the Union claimed
would substantiate its claim that full parity with H.B.
exists. The Union has failed to produce such evidence.
3. The Company contends that the Union's claim is in breach
of the terms of the Programme for National Recovery and
cannot, therefore, be conceded.
Claim (2) Wage increase for clerical workers.
BACKGROUND:
5. The Union for a number of years has been seeking to have the
two workers concerned placed on the H.B. clerical scale which
is #143 to #201. The workers concerned are paid on the Galway
Distribution Trade Rates (#106.76 to #174.06 over 6 years).
Their rate resulted from an agreement reached in July, 1988.
That agreement also provided for the introduction of new
technology which the Company has now introduced. The Union on
27th March, 1990, claimed that the workers should be placed on
the H.B. rates as a result of the introduction of new
technology. The Company rejected the Union's claim on the
grounds that new technology was already provided for in the
1988 agreement. As no agreement could be achieved locally the
matter was referred to the conciliation service along with
claim (1) and subsequently to the Labour Court. The Court's
investigation took place on 6th February, 1991, in Galway.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
6. 1. The 1988 agreement regarding the application of the
Galway Distribution Trade Rates to the workers concerned was
part of an overall package proposed by the Company. This
package also affected drivers and depot staff. The agreement
requested that the clerical staff co-operate with new
technology. At that time the Company was unable to define
what it meant by 'new technology'. Due to the fact that
agreement on clerical rates was holding up the overall
package, it was reluctantly agreed to accept the Galway
Distribution Trade Rates on an interim basis.
2. Since the 1988 agreement the Company has installed
V.D.U.'s and software which has resulted in a substantial
increase in workload for the workers concerned. Previous
claims seeking parity with clerical staff in H.B. were
rejected by the Company because computer technology is part of
the job in H.B.
3. Drivers in the Company have parity with their
counterparts in H.B. and the Union feels it would be
discriminatory not to offer the same parity to the clerical
workers.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
7. 1. The Company contends that the introduction of new
technology has not increased the workload of the workers
concerned. In fact their jobs have been made much easier.
2. The Galway Distribution Trade Rates which are paid to
the clerical workers, take account of the new technology which
has been introduced into the Distributive Trade. It also
allows the trade to operate a 5 over 6 day working week which
the Company does not operate.
3. The Company believes that the workers concerned have
been more than compensated for the new technology. Since the
assimilation onto the Distribution Trade Rates, they have
received some large wage increases. The Court is requested to
allow the 1988 agreement which was accepted by both the Union
and the clerical workers to continue to operate.
RECOMMENDATION:
CLERICAL WORKERS:
8. Having considered the submissions of the parties and the
additional arguments put forward at the hearing, the Court does
not consider that the technology introduced by the Company is
significantly different from that commonly in use in the
distribution trades and therefore does not find grounds to
recommend pay increases by way of parity with H.B.
DRIVERS:
PROFICIENCY PAYMENT:
9. The arguments advanced at the hearing did not convince the
Court that agreed parity with H.B. extended beyond basic pay,
commission and meal-allowances. There was evidence that other
peripheral payments made by H.B. did not apply and both sides
accepted that there was an absence of parity in other significant
conditions of employment. In the circumstances the Court does not
recommend concession of proficiency payments.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
---------------
February, 1991 Kevin Heffernan
B O'N/U.S. Chairman