Labour Court Database
__________________________________________________________________________________
File Number: CD91449
Case Number: LCR13485
Section / Act: S26(1)
Parties: REVLON INTERNATIONAL - and - IRISH DISTRIBUTIVE ADMINISTRATIVE TRADE
|
Subject:
Claim for chargehand rate of pay.
Recommendation:
5. The Court has considered all aspects of this dispute and the
oral and written submissions of the parties.
The Court is disturbed at the delays outside the control of the
parties in having the issue progressed.
On the merits of the case the Court takes the view that the worker
concerned should be paid the chargehand rate. The Court gave
consideration to the date of application of the chargehand rate
and took the view it should be applied with effect from the date
of issue of this recommendation but in equity and in the interests
of developing good industrial relations the worker concerned in
addition should be given an ex gratia payment of £250 in full and
final settlement of the claim.
The Court so recommends.
Division: MrMcGrath Mr Brennan Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD91449 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13485
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES: REVLON INTERNATIONAL
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATION OF IRISH EMPLOYERS)
and
IRISH DISTRIBUTIVE ADMINISTRATIVE TRADE
SUBJECT:
1. Claim for chargehand rate of pay.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker concerned in this dispute is employed as a
cosmetician at an outlet at Brown Thomas Limited. She orders
merchandise and deals with customer queries and complaints. She
keeps accounts, deals with correspondence and has other
administrative duties. In May, 1990 the Union submitted a claim
on her behalf, to the Company for the chargehand rate of pay. The
Union claims that she is entitled to the chargehand rate of pay
because of her duties and responsibilities. The Company rejected
this claim. As local level discussion failed to resolve the
issue, the Union referred the matter to the Labour Relations
Commission. Conciliation conferences were held on 12th March,
1991 and 10th April, 1991 and as no agreement could be reached,
the matter was referred to the Labour Court on 20th August, 1991
for investigation and recommendation. The Court hearing took
place on 4th October, 1991.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The worker has total responsibility for the Company's
sales counter.
2. The Company hold a number of sales promotions of its
cosmetics/perfumery during the year. It employs temporary
staff for such promotions. The worker has added
responsibilities for supervising and accounting at these
times.
3. A number of similar claims which were investigated by a
Rights Commissioner, resulted in the chargehand rate of pay
being awarded to other similar workers.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The job in question is not consistant with that of a
chargehand. A typical chargehand in the distributive trade
would act as a frontline manager and would have considerably
more responsibilities than a beauty advisor.
2. The relative costs of running this counter is high and any
increase in these costs would call into question the
justification for continuing to trade in Brown Thomas.
3. The duties of the beauty advisor fall within the scope of
a sales assistant's work. Concession of this claim could have
knock-on implications for the retail trade as a whole.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court has considered all aspects of this dispute and the
oral and written submissions of the parties.
The Court is disturbed at the delays outside the control of the
parties in having the issue progressed.
On the merits of the case the Court takes the view that the worker
concerned should be paid the chargehand rate. The Court gave
consideration to the date of application of the chargehand rate
and took the view it should be applied with effect from the date
of issue of this recommendation but in equity and in the interests
of developing good industrial relations the worker concerned in
addition should be given an ex gratia payment of £250 in full and
final settlement of the claim.
The Court so recommends.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Tom McGrath
____________________
27th November, 1991 Deputy Chairman.
F.B./J.C.