Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD93278 Case Number: LCR14114 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: EASON AND SON LIMITED - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Special payment for cash handling, and lump-sum and weekly payment for computerisation.
Recommendation:
5. Having considered the views of the parties as expressed in the
oral and written submissions the Court finds as follows:
1. That there are no grounds for the payment of the #1,000
lump-sum and accordingly the claim is rejected.
2. That the arrangements in respect of the buy-out of the
VDU grade in Dublin be offered to the workers concerned
in this claim, and that the Company proposal to pay the
staff concerned retrospective to March, 1992 be accepted.
The Court recommends the above in full settlement of the claims of
the Union.
Division: MrMcGrath Mr McHenry Mr O'Murchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD93278 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14114
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES: EASON AND SON LIMITED
and
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION)
SUBJECT:
1. Special payment for cash handling, and lump-sum and weekly
payment for computerisation.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company is engaged in the wholesaling and retailing of
newspapers, magazines, books, stationery and greeting cards. The
workers concerned are employed by the Company in its warehouse in
Cork.
The Union claims that it has been operating on the understanding
that the same rates which apply to workers in Dublin also apply to
workers in Cork even though workers in Dublin and Cork negotiate
separately.
In March, 1992, the Union submitted a claim on behalf of the
workers concerned:
"(A) That the warehouse workers receive lump-sum payment of
#1,000 for working on computers.
(B) Grade pay of #6 per week for working on computers plus
60p per day retainer, Book Department.
(C) Showroom members to receive #7.89 for dealing with cash".
The Union claims that certain allowances and lump-sum payments
paid to workers in Dublin in the early 80's have not been paid to
workers in Cork. The Company rejected the claim and the matter
was referred to the Labour Relations Commission.
A conciliation conference was held on 29th July, 1992, at which
the Company sought an adjournment because it hoped to reach
agreement in relation to the 3% (Clause 3) of the Programme for
Economic and Social Progress (P.E.S.P.) with employees in Dublin
and because one of the Company's proposals concerned the #7.89
payment. A further conciliation conference was held on 22nd
December, 1992, at which the Company proposed that the Union defer
the matter pending a Labour Court hearing in relation to the 3%
(Clause 3) of P.E.S.P..
The Union rejected the proposal and the matter was referred to the
Labour Court on 28th April, 1993. The Labour Court hearing took
place on 14th May, 1993.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Company has sought to delay the processing of this
dispute due to its desire to convince the workers concerned to
absorb all claims into the claim for 3% (Clause 3) P.E.S.P. by
workers in Dublin in return for concession of this 3%.
2. The claims before the Court have been paid to workers in
Dublin for the past 12/13 years. The Company's refusal to pay
these allowances for such a long period of time has affected
the morale of the workers in Cork.
3. The Union's regional secretary received misleading
information from the Company in relation to extra payments.
4. The Company attempted to confuse the issues at the
conciliation conference on 22nd December, 1993.
5. The Union is insisting that the Court fully examine all
outstanding grade claims or any other payments on behalf of
the workers concerned. The Union is concerned about the
possibility that there may be other extra payments to which
the workers concerned are entitled. The Union cannot accept
any Company assurances on the matter.
6. The Company has offered the workers concerned the terms of
L.C.R. No. 14017 in lieu of this claim. L.C.R. No. 14017
clearly refers to the VDU grade payment of #8.73 per week.
This offer was accepted by the workers concerned. This
reduces the number of claims before the Court but there are
still a number of claims plus the #1,000 compensation which
have not been covered.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The special payment of #7.89 for cash handling dates from
early this century when large numbers of news vendors came in
person to the wholesale warehouse to purchase newspapers and
magazines and also to pay their accounts. Because of the
nature of the news business, staff in the department were
required to cover longer opening hours than sales staff
elsewhere (i.e. 6 a.m. start). They were also responsible for
handling large amounts of cash. Nowadays the majority of news
customers pay their accounts by direct debit and by cheque,
leaving only occasional or casual customers paying by cash.
The work content of the job has also changed significantly.
2. The Company has for some years past attempted to buy out
this grade.
3. Staff in other areas of the Company i.e. wholesale books,
wholesale stationery, who also handle small amounts of cash,
have never received this payment. Likewise staff in the
retail section, who constitute the majority of employees who
handle cash on a constant basis, do not receive any grade
payments.
4. The employee in question who is the subject of this
particular grade claim operates a VDU which is also part of
the Union's claim. In cases such as this, where the employee
is in a position which carries two grades, the Company policy
is that the higher grade only will apply. In this case the
higher of the two is the VDU grade.
5. The weekly payments for computerisation consist of a
weekly retainer of #5.43 plus a daily payment of 66p. This
weekly payment was originally paid in Dublin to staff
operating a punched card system. This operation required a
significant amount of skill to operate properly. The punched
cards eventually evolved to computers and VDUs, which were for
the most part operated by the same staff.
6. For many years the Company has considered this grade to be
an anachronism and the Company has attempted on numerous
occasions to get rid of it - along with the Sales Showroom
grade - by means off a buyout. Resulting from a recent Labour
Court Recommendation (L.C.R. No. 14017) the Company has
reached an agreement for the discontinuance of this grade.
7. Staff in Cork have not been discriminated against. The
grade has not been extended outside its original parameters
because of the reasons mentioned above.
8. In the interests of good industrial relations, the Company
has agreed to pay the grade to the staff concerned
retrospective to 19th March, 1992, the original date of the
claim. This payment is linked to an agreement reached on an
immediate buyout of the two grades which in turn is linked to
an agreement to pay the 3% negotiable under P.E.S.P.. The
Company is not prepared to pay any further retrospection and
considers that the amount offered is more than reasonable.
9. In May, 1985, following Labour Court Recommendation L.C.R.
No. 9540, the Company paid a once off productivity based
lump-sum of #1,000 to 12 employees in the News Invoicing
Office in Dublin. The principal reason for the award of this
lump-sum was the changeover from a Mohawk/Cara bureau system
to a new Digital Vax machine. The increase in productivity
arose mainly from the resulting loss of four jobs in this
area. The above payment and productivity formed the basis of
an agreement between the I.T.G.W.U. and Easons in May, 1985.
10. Employees in other areas of the Company who used VDUs did
not receive a lump-sum payment. Consequently there is no
justification for this claim.
11. Easons has been established since the 1870s. Over such a
long period of time it is inevitable that new work practices
will arise, just as old ones disappear. In any transition
period there may be an overlap of grades and work practices.
The V.D.U. and Sales Showroom grades are but two examples of
this.
12. The Company is not prepared to allow grades which it
considers obsolete to be extended into other sections of the
Company.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. Having considered the views of the parties as expressed in the
oral and written submissions the Court finds as follows:
1. That there are no grounds for the payment of the #1,000
lump-sum and accordingly the claim is rejected.
2. That the arrangements in respect of the buy-out of the
VDU grade in Dublin be offered to the workers concerned
in this claim, and that the Company proposal to pay the
staff concerned retrospective to March, 1992 be accepted.
The Court recommends the above in full settlement of the claims of
the Union.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Tom McGrath
_____________________
24th June, 1993. Deputy Chairman.
F.B./J.C.
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Fran Brennan, Court Secretary.