FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2001 SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : KELLIHERS HARDWARE (TRALEE) LTD (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY MANDATE) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Flood Employer Member: Mr Doherty Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Appeal of Rights Commissioner's Recommendation IR10589/02/MR.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company is a long established small privately owned business involved in the retail of general hardware including plumbing and building supplies. It currently employs nine staff.
The worker concerned is employed by the Company since 1972 as a Sales Assistant in the heating and plumbing department. In July, 2000, he was advised that bathroom and shower accessories would transfer to his department and no further staff support would be available and no adjustment would be made to his salary.
The Union's claim is that compensation should be paid to the worker concerned for the additional workload and responsibility placed on him. The Company rejects the claim stating that the worker's duties are not excessive. He does not have staff reporting to him and he does not hold the responsibility for a budget.
The Company made an informal offer to the worker concerned of €761.84 per annum. This offer was rejected.
The claim was referred to a Rights Commissioner for investigation and recommendation. His recommendation issued on the 16th June, 2003, as follows:
"In the circumstances, I recommend that Kellihers Hardware (Tralee) Ltd. should agree to amend its offer to an increase of €25 per week with effect from 1st January, 2003, and that the worker and MANDATE should accept this increase in full and final settlement of this dispute."
(The worker was named in the Rights Commissioner's recommendation).
The Company appealed the recommendation to the Labour Court on the 25th July, 2003, in accordance with Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 11th November, 2003, the earliest date suitable to the parties.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The claimant's duties are similar to those of other employees within the store.
2. The claimant does not have any responsibility in relation to a budget for the section in which he works, he does not have staff reporting to him, nor does he have to achieve specific sales targets.
3. Every effort has been made to resolve the issue.
4. The claim cannot be conceded as it would have knock on implications for employee relations within the store.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. A detailed analysis of the claimant's role and job description confirms that he holds a position of responsibility.
2. The claimant has sole responsibility for all issues relating to his department including performance, turnover, stock loss, ordering, merchandising and selling.
3. The claimant is paid substantially less that relative comparators with the industry.
4. The additional workload is intensive and time consuming.
DECISION:
The Court notes that the Rights Commissioner found that the Union had not made a convincing case for the establishment of the post of responsibility. The Rights Commissioner appears to have made an award for an increase in salary based on the fact that the Company had made an offer to increase the complainant's rate of pay and therefore, he had an expectation of an increase in his earnings.
The Court agrees with the Rights Commissioner's decision in not awarding a post of responsibility. However, while agreeing with the Rights Commissioner's findings in relation to the Company offer, the Court cannot find any justification for increasing the Company offer.
The Court, therefore, having considered all aspects of the case recommends that the original Company offer to the complainant should be reoffered by the Company and accepted by the complainant. The Rights Commissioner's recommendation should be amended accordingly.
The Court so decides.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Finbarr Flood
1st December, 2003______________________
GB/MB.Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Gerardine Buckley, Court Secretary.