Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD95423 Case Number: LCR14883 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: STANLEY RACING (IRELAND) LTD. (THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
(i) Wage Increase; (ii) "Lucky Numbers" productivity.
Recommendation:
The Court, having considered the written and oral submissions made
by the parties, finds no basis for conceding the Union's claim.
The Court, therefore, rejects the Union's claim.
Division: Mr Flood Mr McHenry Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD95423 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14883
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1969 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES:
STANLEY RACING (IRELAND) LTD.
(Represented by the Irish Business and Employers' Confederation)
AND
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
(i) Wage Increase;
(ii) "Lucky Numbers" productivity.
BACKGROUND:
The Company commenced trading in Ireland in December, 1989,
and currently operates 53 betting shops, employing a total of
157 shop-based staff. The Union is seeking a basic wage
increase of approximately 20%, on the grounds that the
present rates are low and do not reflect the level of
responsibility and additional duties carried out by staff.
The Company rejected the claim stating that its rates, which
include all elements of the PNR and PESP and phases 1 and 2
of the PCW, comply with the industry norm.
The second claim is for additional payment (5%) to workers
arising from extra duties carried out since the introduction
of "Lucky Numbers" (based on the twice-weekly "Lotto" draw).
The Company's position is that Lucky Numbers forms part of
the entire mix of its business and that the grading of
managerial posts is related to the level of business (the
grading structure excludes cashiers).
The dispute was the subject of a conciliation conference
under the auspices of the Labour Relations Commission at
which agreement was not reached. The dispute was referred to
the Labour Court, on the 17th of July, 1995, in accordance
with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990.
The Court carried out its investigation on the 25th of
August, 1995.
CLAIM 1: WAGE INCREASE:
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
1. The Company's rates are too low and do not reflect the
responsibilities and duties of the staff (details supplied to
the Court).
2. Staffing levels have been reduced by a third since 1994. The
same amount of work is still being carried out by the
remaining staff.
3. The Company's rates for managers and cashiers compare poorly
with the average industry's equivalent: Dunnes Stores'
clerical staff are on higher rates and TOTE rates are also
significantly higher.
4. The Company has a grading system into which the Union has no
input. The system does not cover cashiers and should be
abolished and replaced by the implementation of a fair rate
of pay for all staff.
5. The Company is a newly unionised company and, accordingly,
the claim is not debarred by the National Wage Agreements.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
1. The Company, in effect, pays substantially more in real terms
than a number of competitors in the industry and has an
attractive package of terms and conditions for both managers
and cashiers. The only true comparators are companies
operating in the same industry. Stanley's rates of pay are
higher across-the-board than the three main bookmaking chains
(details supplied to the Court).
2. The Company's grading system rewards individual shop
managers for increased productivity, in effect, for increased
numbers of bets taken and their cash values.
CLAIM 2: LUCKY NUMBERS/PRODUCTIVITY
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
1. Lucky Numbers betting was introduced by the Company in 1991,
leading to increased turnover and requiring greater
productivity from workers, especially on Wednesdays and
Saturdays.
2. Market research shows that up to 200,000 play Lucky Numbers
regularly, realising #25m for the betting industry annually.
A payment of a 5% increase to the workers would not be
unreasonable.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
1. The Shop Managers' Grading Scheme takes account of the entire
mix of business transacted. If the Lucky Numbers business
did not exist then the individual grades of shops would be
lower. The shop Grading Scheme takes account of Lucky
Number business as it does every other part of the business
mix.
2. The staffing levels of individual shops have in some cases
been increased to cope with the levels of business taken on
Lucky Numbers. As well as this, additional Cashier
assistance has been required in a significant number of
shops, thus increasing the earnings potential of staff and in
particular 27-Hour Cashiers.
3. The Company operates a productivity bonus which rewards all
permanent staff provided budgeted profit targets are met.
This was paid to all staff in respect of the 1994/1995
Trading Year. A Cashier Grading Scheme was introduced in
April 1992 under Clause 3 of the PESP, paying a minimum of
3%. Increases of between 3% and 7.8% were paid to staff.
Over 95% of staff received in excess of 3% with 20% of staff
receiving 7.8%
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court, having considered the written and oral submissions made
by the parties, finds no basis for conceding the Union's claim.
The Court, therefore, rejects the Union's claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
1st September, 1995 Finbarr Flood
M.K./A.K. ---------------
Deputy Chairman
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Michael Keegan, Court Secretary.