Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD92389 Case Number: LCR13767 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: ROCHES STORES LIMITED - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
A dispute concerning (1) A productivity/flexibility agreement. (2) Work proper to the general workers being done by other categories of worker.
Recommendation:
5. Having considered the submissions made by the parties the
Court considers that in this case the review of the Agreement as
proposed by the Union would be contrary to the terms of Clause 5
of the P.E.S.P.. The Court does not therefore recommend
concession of the Union's claim.
On the complaint by the Union on the matter of work proper to its
members, having regard to the terms of the Agreement of 1978 which
provides for mobility and flexibility, together with the major
changes both in the physical layout of the store as well as other
changes in organisation and staffing, the Court does not consider
that the Union's complaint in this regard can be upheld.
The Court therefore does not recommend any changes under this
heading. The Court noted management's assurance at the hearing
that it is not their intention to use the flexibility clause of
the agreement to replace porters and that in fact it is their
intention to continue to employ this category of worker.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr Brennan Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD92389 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13767
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES: ROCHES STORES LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATION OF IRISH EMPLOYERS)
and
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. A dispute concerning
(1) A productivity/flexibility agreement.
(2) Work proper to the general workers being done by other
categories of worker.
BACKGROUND:
2. 1. The Company is a department store established since 1933.
It employs 18 general workers and cleaners. Two claims
concerning the above issues were lodged by the Union at a
meeting on 11th February, 1992. The claims were rejected by
the Company.
2. Productivity/Flexibility Agreement
In 1978 the Company and Union signed the above mentioned
agreement. The Agreement provides for:
"The continuation of existing work practices of total
mobility together with full flexibility (without loss of
remuneration)".
The Union claims that the agreement was signed at a time when
the Company employed over 65 general operatives. There are
now 18 employed and the Union feels that the environment has
changed to such extent that the agreement needs to be
re-negotiated".
3. Work proper to the general workers
The Union's claim is that because of the reduction in their
members there is an increase in the incidence of other workers
doing work appropriate to its members. The Union is seeking
an agreed manning level.
4. A conciliation conference was held on 16th April, 1992.
No progress was possible and the claims were referred to the
Labour Court by the Labour Relations Commission on 7th July,
1992. A Labour Court investigation took place in Limerick on
2nd September, 1992.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. Productivity/Flexibility Agreement
When the Agreement was concluded in 1978, there were 65
porters employed, responsible for all general work (details
supplied). The total mobility clause dealt specifically with
departments in the store at the time. Workers were never
moved from their area and only covered in the event of illness
and annual leave of a worker in the same area.
2. The work involved in 1978 does not compare with that of
1992 in terms of productivity/flexibility and pressure. There
are now 18 workers employed with a much increased workload
(details supplied). The Company expects continually
increasing productivity with no recompense to the workers.
The Company has refused to discuss manning levels or to have
the workers' duties examined by an industrial engineer. The
Agreement as it presently stands is out-dated.
3. Work proper to the general workers
Over the last number of years the Company has introduced a
policy of other workers doing work proper to the general
workers (details supplied). There has been no discussion with
the Union on this new development. The practice of management
doing work proper to general operatives is encouraged on a
continuous basis. This has increased in line with the
reduction in the number of workers.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. Flexibility/Productivity Agreement
The 1978 agreement re-affirmed the continuation of existing
practices of total mobility together with full flexibility and
co-operation between all the general workers throughout the
Company. At the time the workers received a 12% pay increase
over and above usual wage round increases.
2. The payment made in 1978 was in respect of mobility and
flexibility already in existance. As such it was not and is
not a negotiable item. The claim is also precluded under
Clause 5 of the Programme for Economic and Social Progress
(P.E.S.P.).
3. Work proper to the general workers
General workers are a necessary part of the Company's
operation and play a full role in servicing the needs of the
customer. They do not fulfil an exclusive role in that regard
and like the general workers, sales and management staff have
been totally mobile and flexible. This is standard practice
and has always been viewed as such and communicated to the
Unions.
4. There has been no deliberate rationalisation in the
reduction in numbers but rather a process of natural wastage.
A revised building and organisational structure has resulted
in a reduced requirement for general workers. The needs of
the business dictate manning levels and it is a function of
management to assess the needs. The Company is however
committed to retaining the category of general worker. The
Company would submit that the number of general workers in
1978 was 32.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. Having considered the submissions made by the parties the
Court considers that in this case the review of the Agreement as
proposed by the Union would be contrary to the terms of Clause 5
of the P.E.S.P.. The Court does not therefore recommend
concession of the Union's claim.
On the complaint by the Union on the matter of work proper to its
members, having regard to the terms of the Agreement of 1978 which
provides for mobility and flexibility, together with the major
changes both in the physical layout of the store as well as other
changes in organisation and staffing, the Court does not consider
that the Union's complaint in this regard can be upheld.
The Court therefore does not recommend any changes under this
heading. The Court noted management's assurance at the hearing
that it is not their intention to use the flexibility clause of
the agreement to replace porters and that in fact it is their
intention to continue to employ this category of worker.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
_____________________
24th September, 1992. Deputy Chairman.
J.F./J.C.
Note
Enquiries concerning the Recommendation should be addressed to Mr.
Jerome Forde, Court Secretary.