Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD92639 Case Number: AD92229 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: J.C.M. DISTRIBUTION - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Appeal by both parties against Rights Commissioner's recommendation No. C.W. 287/92 concerning the rate of differential payable to a Warehouse Chargehand.
Recommendation:
9. Having considered the submissions from the parties the Court
is of the view that the Rights Commissioner's recommendation
should be amended and accordingly the Court rejects the appeal
from both parties and decides that the Rights Commissioner's
recommendation be altered to read 8% in lieu of 10% to be
implemented from the date of this decision.
The Court so decides.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Brennan Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD92639 APPEAL DECISION NO. AD22992
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES: J.C.M. DISTRIBUTION
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATION OF IRISH EMPLOYERS)
and
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Appeal by both parties against Rights Commissioner's
recommendation No. C.W. 287/92 concerning the rate of differential
payable to a Warehouse Chargehand.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company, which was established in 1986 following its
demerger from Tennant and Ruttle Distribution, is responsible for
the sole distribution for Mars Confectionery in Ireland.
3. At the time the Company was set up there were two Warehouse
Supervisors employed. They were paid an hourly rate and received
bonus and overtime entitlements similar to the Warehouse
Operatives. In 1988 the Company bought out the overtime and bonus
arrangements from the two Warehouse Supervisors and altered their
jobs to that of Warehouse Controller. In 1990 one of the
Warehouse Controllers left the Company. The Company did not
replace him and then decided to advertise for the position of
chargehand in the warehouse. This position was advertised at a
grade lower that Warehouse Controller and a grade higher than the
next higher operative i.e. forklift driver.
4. The position was advertised internally in September, 1992.
The worker concerned in the dispute applied for and was appointed
to the post. He commenced his new duties in October, 1990. The
worker successfully completed his probationary period of 3 months
and was made permanent in the position.
5. The Company and the Union held a number of meetings to discuss
aspects of the job with which the Union was unhappy particularly
the pay element. The rate of pay for the job was set at #194.36
per week basic, a difference of 6% over the rate for forklift
driver. The Union claimed that the differential should be
increased to between 30% and 40% of that of the forklift driver
rate. As no agreement was reached the dispute was referred to a
Rights Commissioner for investigation and recommendation. The
Rights Commissioner investigated the dispute on 2nd September,
1992 and issued the following recommendation, dated 7th October,
1992:-
"I recommend that the Company offers and the Union accepts
that the differential of 6% be increased to 10% effective
from 1st June, 1992 in settlement of this dispute".
6. Both parties appealed the Rights Commissioner's recommendation
to the Labour Court under Section 13(9) of the Industrial
Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on 20th
November, 1992.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
7. 1. The rate of pay for the position of chargehand does not
accurately reflect the function and responsibility involved.
This position has enabled the Company to eliminate the second
Warehouse Controller post, with very significant savings.
2. The responsibility and the duties of the post have
expanded since the post was established (details supplied to
the Court).
3. The position is similar to the Warehouse Supervisor post
in two sister Companies. The positions in the sister
Companies carry a differential of 30% to 40% of that of
forklift driver.
4. As the job is a new position and the claim is in respect
of a rate of pay appropriate to that job the claim is not in
breach of the Programme for Economic and Social Progress
(P.E.S.P.).
5. The Union's claim reflects the general differential
applying in similar employments (details supplied to the
Court).
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
8. 1. The worker is adequately paid for the tasks involved.
2. The worker's present gross earnings are in excess of those
normally applicable to chargehands and supervisors in the
Dublin area (details supplied to the Court). To increase the
worker's earnings any further would leave the Company in a
very uncompetititve situation.
3. The claim is cost-increasing and therefore is in breach of
the Programme for Economic and Social Progress (P.E.S.P.).
4. The worker was aware of the conditions and pay for the job
prior to accepting the position.
5. The worker's job does not equate to that of supervisor as
he is not a keyholder. He cannot take formal disciplinary
action and his role is that of Working Chargehand.
6. The issue of retrospection was never raised during the
course of negotiations and the Court is accordingly asked to
address this issue.
DECISION:
9. Having considered the submissions from the parties the Court
is of the view that the Rights Commissioner's recommendation
should be amended and accordingly the Court rejects the appeal
from both parties and decides that the Rights Commissioner's
recommendation be altered to read 8% in lieu of 10% to be
implemented from the date of this decision.
The Court so decides.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Evelyn Owens
___________________
7th December, 1992. Deputy Chairman.
M.D./J.C.