FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : PRIMARK LIMITED (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - MANDATE DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Flood Employer Member: Mr Keogh Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Appeal against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation IR779/99/CW.
BACKGROUND:
2. The dispute concerns one worker, a member of staff in the Goods Inwards area in the Company's O'Connell Street store. On her behalf, it is claimed that she is entitled to the same rate of pay (£7.85) as similar staff in the Company's Mary Street store. The claim was rejected by the Company on the grounds that comparisons between the 2 stores were not relevant and that, in any event, the claim was cost-increasing and, therefore, precluded under Partnership 2000. The matter was the subject of investigation by a Rights Commissioner who, in his findings, did not accept that the worker had established a meritorious imperative for the sought after pay-rate. He recommended that the worker accept her present pay-rate. The Union appealed the Rights Commissioner's Recommendation, to the Labour Court, on the 10th May, 2000, in accordance with Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. The Court heard the appeal on the 10th October, 2000, the earliest date convenient to both parties.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The worker in question performs a range of duties that are as complex and as onerous, if not more so, as those performed by similar staff in the Mary Street stockroom (details supplied to the Court).
2. Given that the two stores are of comparable size and turnover, the worker's claim is well-merited and should be conceded by the Company.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Goods Inwards area in Mary Street is also the Head Office Goods Receiving area and it differs from the O'Connell Street Goods Inwards area in relation to the staffing structure in the 2 stores (details supplied to the Court). In O'Connell Street storepersons are responsible for checking goods and entering informarion in the Freight book. In Mary Street, Goods Inward staff carry out those duties. Additionally, Mary Street Goods Inwards has always been part of Head Office, with specific additional duties (details supplied to Court).
2. The clerical scale applicable to Goods Inwards staff in Mary Street is unique to that store and reflects many characteristics which are relevant to that store, which have been in place for many years and which have no relevance to the other 33 stores.
3. Concession of the claim would have repercussive effects, with considerable financial implications throughout the Company's other stores.
4. No parity has ever existed between the two stores.
5. The claim is cost-increasing and is, therefore, precluded under Partnership 2000 and the Programme for Prosperity and Fairness.
DECISION:
The Court, having considered the written and oral submissions, finds no reason to amend the Rights Commissioner's Recommendation. The Court, therefore upholds the Rights Commissioner's Recommendation and rejects the appeal.
The Court so decides.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Finbarr Flood
24th October, 2000______________________
mk/mkChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Michael Keegan, Court Secretary.