FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : QUINNSWORTH - AND - MANDATE DIVISION : Chairman: Mr McGrath Employer Member: Mr Brennan Worker Member: Mr Rorke |
1. Appeal of Rights Commissioner's Recommendation No. CW403/96 concerning claim for chargehand rate.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker concerned commenced employment with the Company in 1980. Currently he is employed as a sales assistant in the fresh and frozen foods section of the Company's store in Naas. The Union claims that the worker is performing duties which are proper to the position of chargehand and submitted a claim for payment of the chargehand rate of pay. Management rejects the claim.
The matter was referred to a Rights Commissioner for investigation and recommendation. On 20th January, 1997 the Rights Commissioner recommended as follows:-
"I recommend that the Union accept that the chargehand rate of pay is not appropriate to the worker ."
The worker was named in the Recommendation.
The Rights Commissioner's Recommendation was appealed by the Union to the Labour Court on 27th January, 1997 under Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on 18th April, 1997.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The worker performs duties which are proper to the position of chargehand e.g.
- dealing with customers' complaints and queries which are directed
to the worker through staff and management,
- dealing with sales representatives and store demonstrators,
- ordering various fresh and frozen foods, completing paper work
associated with same,
- dealing with deliveries, returning damaged or out-of-date stocks and
preparing the appropriate documentation for the various suppliers
involved,
- carrying out freshness checks on all goods.
The above range of duties are comparable to the levels of responsibilities involved in a number of other posts in the store which carry the chargehand differential.
2. The worker is not seeking additional payments over and above those agreed between the Company/Union. The payment sought is an agreed payment for posts carrying extra responsibilities.
3. Management's submission to the Rights Commissioner was misleading.
4. Concession of the Union's claim will not lead to claims from other members of staff. It is acknowledged by the worker's colleagues that he performs duties over and above those of sales assistant. In the circumstances the payment of the chargehand rate of pay is justified.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. Since 1991 the worker has been employed as a sales assistant. He is paid in accordance with a scale agreed with his Trade Union. These agreed rates of pay are well in excess of statutory minimum and are competitive vis-a-vis other staff employed in the Retail Grocery sector.
2. The duties which the worker carries out are those appropriate to a sales assistant as set down by the Grocery JLC.
3. The worker has no staff reporting to him and has no specific departmental responsibility or accountability for sales and profit margins. His position is not a chargehand one.
4. The position which the worker holds is not one which has been designated to be a chargehand position. The current list of designated chargehand positions are those that emerged from the joint FUE/IUWC working party. Current Mandate officials were part of the joint working party at the time.
5. The basic nature of the worker's duties are the same as those performed by his predecessors. All of his predecessors were paid in accordance with the normal sales assistant pay scales.
6. Over the past number of years the essential nature of the role which the worker has performed has not changed. The Company has simply developed the business by adding/deleting product lines in keeping with changing customer preferences and has also continued to train and develop staff to better serve the customers.
DECISION:
The Court finds that the arrangements between the parties regarding the payment of posts of responsibility differential are quite explicit, and that payment of the differential to the worker here concerned is not appropriate.
The Court however given the duties of the worker here concerned does not consider that the grade of shop assistant adequately reflects the level of duties and responsibilities of his job.
The Court considers the parties should further examine his role with a view to agreeing a more appropriate arrangement given the duties and responsibilities involved.
The Rights Commissioner's Recommendation is amended to reflect the above.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Tom McGrath
22nd May, 1997______________________
F.B./D.T.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Fran Brennan, Court Secretary.