Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD87123 Case Number: LCR11119 Section / Act: S20(1) Parties: DUNNES STORES - and - IDATU |
Alteration of the duty rota of three office staff in the Company's Stillorgan branch.
Recommendation:
5. The decision by the Company not to attend the Court hearing
did not help consideration of this case. In the absence of
evidence to the contrary, the Court considers that the union's
proposal is reasonable and recommends that it be implemented by
management.
Division: Mr Fitzgerald Mr Shiel Mr Devine
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD87123 THE LABOUR COURT LCR11119
Section 20(1) INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT 1969
RECOMMENDATION NO. 11119
Parties: DUNNES STORES
and
IRISH DISTRIBUTIVE AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRADE UNION
Subject:
1. Alteration of the duty rota of three office staff in the
Company's Stillorgan branch.
Background:
There are three office staff in the Company's Stillorgan branch.
A rota as follows existed for the office staff for approximately
sixteen years.
Days off
Weeks 1, 2 and 3
Worker a Wednesday
Worker b Saturday
Worker c Saturday
Week 4
Worker b Thursday
Worker a Saturday
worker c Saturday
In 1986 the Company changed the rota as follows without
consultation with the workers.
Days off
Week 1 Week 2
Worker a Monday Worker a Tuesday
Worker c Tuesday Worker c Wednesday
Worker b Wednesday Worker b Saturday
Week 3 Week 4
Worker b Monday Worker c Monday
Worker a Wednesday Worker b Tuesday
Worker c Saturday Worker a Saturday
The workers were not satisfied with this arrangement and proposed
an alternative rota as follows:-
Week 1
Worker a Wednesday
Worker c Thursday
Worker b Saturday
Week 2
Worker b Wednesday
Worker a Thursday
Worker c Saturday
Week 3
Worker c Wednesday
Worker b Thursday
Worker a Saturday
A meeting took place on 11th November, 1986, but no agreement was
reached. The Union sought to refer the matter to the conciliation
service of the Labour Court but the Company was unwilling to
attend a conciliation conference. The Union referred the matter
to a full hearing of the Labour Court under Section 20(1) of the
Industrial Relations Act, 1969. The hearing took place on 20th
March, 1987. The Company was not represented at the hearing.
Prior to the hearing the Union agreed to be bound by the Court's
Recommendation.
Union's arguments:
3. (i) The Company changed the office rota without agreement
and without consideration for the requirements of the
staff. The Union was not involved in discussions with
the Company until 11th November by which time the
Company had threatened to suspend the office staff if
they did not implement the new rota.
(ii) The object of changing the rota was to ensure that two
staff were in the office on Saturdays to provide
adequate security cover and that the rota for days off
was the same as for shop floor staff. The rota
proposed by the workers would meet the Company's
requirements but was rejected by the Company on grounds
of "Company policy" and working practice elsewhere in
the group.
(iii) While the new rota proposed by the Company does provide
additional security cover it creates a backlog of work
at the commencement of three out of four weeks.
(iv) The three workers concerned worked the old rota for 12
years, 7 years and 3 years respectively.
Recommendation:
5. The decision by the Company not to attend the Court hearing
did not help consideration of this case. In the absence of
evidence to the contrary, the Court considers that the union's
proposal is reasonable and recommends that it be implemented by
management.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John M Horgan
24th April, 1987 --------------------
AK/PG p.p. Nicholas Fitzgerald
Deputy Chairman