Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD94180 Case Number: LCR14499 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: AER RIANTA - and - MANDATE |
(i) Potential loss of earnings under "vendor control"; (ii) Inclusion of compulsory ("early, early"/"late, late") overtime in holiday pay.
Recommendation:
Having considered the submissions from the parties the Court
recommends as follows:
1. Potential Loss of Earnings under "Vendor Control"
As there has been no actual loss of earnings to date the
Court does not consider it would be justified in recommending
concession of the Union's claim.
2. Inclusion of Compulsory Overtime in Holiday Pay
In all the circumstances and in particular taking into
account the present agreement as to the payment of Holiday
Pay the Court does not find in favour of the Union's claim.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Brennan Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD94180 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14499
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES:
AER RIANTA
AND
MANDATE
SUBJECT:
1. (i) Potential loss of earnings under "vendor control";
(ii) Inclusion of compulsory ("early, early"/"late, late")
overtime in holiday pay.
BACKGROUND:
2. The workers concerned are employed by the Company as sales-
assistants in the tax-free/duty-free shops in Dublin Airport.
They are paid a basic rate of pay plus commission bonus. In
June, 1993, the Union submitted the above claims on behalf of
the workers concerned. The Company rejected the claim. The
matter was referred to the Labour Relations Commission. A
conciliation conference was held on 3rd December, 1993. As
no agreement was reached, the matter was referred to the
Labour Court in accordance with Section 26(1) of the
Industrial Relations Act, 1990, on 21st March, 1994. A
Labour Court hearing took place on 14th June, 1994.
CLAIM I - Potential Loss of Earnings under "Vendor Control".
3. In January, 1993, the Company introduced a system of "vendor
control" whereby the salesperson, under EC rules, is obliged
to limit sales to the value of the customer's allowance. The
Union submitted a claim for loss of earnings due to the
impact of the new system on potential commission earnings.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. Under "vendor control", the workers are responsible for
monitoring the sales/allowance a customer is entitled to
whereas previously they were salespersons, solely
orientated to boosting sales. Their role is now
enlarged to that of guardian in relation of customer
entitlements. This involves additional work and
responsibilities while at the same time adversely
affecting commission earnings.
2. The Company's claim concerning the overall remuneration
package and perks of the job is rejected. These
benefits only reflect the shift nature of the work which
can require the working of unsociable and long hours.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 3. Commission is paid at 0.5% on duty-free and at 1.25% on
tax-free sales. A reduction of sales would result in
decrease in revenue to the company. It would be
unrealistic to expect the Company to compensate the
workers in such a situation.
4. Sales have increased, resulting in increased earnings
(details supplied to the Court). If current trends
continue, apart from substantially increased commission
earnings, the workers concerned will receive an increase
of 40% on their end-of-year bonus payment.
CLAIM II - INCLUSION OF COMPULSORY OVERTIME IN HOLIDAY PAY.
4. The Union claim is on the basis that two types of overtime
arise where flights are leaving "early, early" (i.e. before
the start of the first shift) or "late, late" (i.e. after the
end of the late shift). Workers are obliged to provide
service through earlier starts or late finishes, which are
rostered.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The "early, early" and "late, late" overtime has existed
for as long as can be remembered. It is compulsory and
it is unreasonable that workers should have to take what
amounts to a drop in pay during annual leave.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. Under the Holiday Employee Act, 1973, there is no
obligation on the Company to include the overtime in
holiday pay (details supplied to the Court).
2. The workers receive an average holiday commission
payment which is based on their commission earnings over
the preceding 12 weeks. This payment is in lieu of any
additional payments above basic pay that are due for
annual leave.
RECOMMENDATION:
Having considered the submissions from the parties the Court
recommends as follows:
1. Potential Loss of Earnings under "Vendor Control"
As there has been no actual loss of earnings to date the
Court does not consider it would be justified in recommending
concession of the Union's claim.
2. Inclusion of Compulsory Overtime in Holiday Pay
In all the circumstances and in particular taking into
account the present agreement as to the payment of Holiday
Pay the Court does not find in favour of the Union's claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
11th July, 1994 Evelyn Owens
F.B./M.M. __________________
Deputy Chairperson
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Fran Brennan, Court Secretary.