FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : ROCHES STORES LIMERICK LIMITED (REPRESENTED BY THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Flood Employer Member: Mr Keogh Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Work allocation.
BACKGROUND:
2. Roches Stores Limerick was established in 1933. It operates as a department store retailing in clothing, hardware and grocery. It employs 260 workers, of whom 30 are general workers.
The issue before the Court concerns a dispute regarding the duties of general workers. Specifically problems exist in two areas:-
(i) assembly/disassembly of shelves;
(ii) sweeping car park.
The Company claims that sweeping and shelf assembly/disassembly is general work and the workers refusal to do this work is contrary to the 1978 productivity/flexibility agreement.
The Union is concerned with the drop in numbers of manual workers and argues that the Company is seeking increased productivity from the current workforce.
Local level discussions failed to resolve the issue and the matter was referred to the Labour Relations Commission. A conciliation conference took place on 6th November, 1996. As agreement could not be reached the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on 6th December, 1996 under Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place in Limerick on the 26th March, 1997.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The cleaning of the car park was always undertaken by a crew of employees whose day to day duties involved sweeping yards, cleaning canopies, spraying walks and general cleaning of the store. This crew, because of its duties, has an earlier starting and finishing time compared to the dispatch area.
2. Some of the workers concerned have been employed for approximately 20 years and have never cleaned the car park.
3. The Union is not arguing that general workers should not assemble/disassemble shelves and has given a commitment to do so. However, the general workers will not carry out the duties of tradespeople.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The 1978 agreement was payment in recognition of existing and continuing practices of mobility and flexibility. The Company has continued to honour that agreement through the consolidation of the 12% increase. The Union is in breach of the agreement by its refusal to carryout cleaning and assembly duties.
2. General workers are employed to do general work as allocated by the Company. Sweeping is accepted by the workers as such. Their refusal to do so is not only in breach of the flexibility agreement, but also in contravention of their contractual obligation.
3. The screwing and unscrewing of shelves is not craftwork. It is general work, as is assembling/dismantling of shelves and fixing free-standing shelving units (known as "gondolas") to the floor. General workers are not required to do skilled craft work.
4. General workers are not employed on the basis of restrictive, work practices. If such is to be the case, the Company would have to reconsider its current policy. Roches Stores Limerick issuffering losses and must increase its efficiency and cost effectiveness if future investment is to be secured.
5. The Union's claim is "cost increasing" and entirely contrary to the terms and spirit of both the PCW and Partnership 2000.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court having considered the submissions made by the parties recommends that the employees undertake the cleaning and shelf assemble work when requested to do so.
However, the issues raised in relation to work load and planning should be addressed by the Company in discussions with the employees.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Finbarr Flood
19th May, 1997______________________
F.B./D.T.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Fran Brennan, Court Secretary.