Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD89436 Case Number: LCR12532 Section / Act: S20(1) Parties: DUNNES STORES (BISHOPSTOWN) LIMITED - and - IRISH DISTRIBUTIVE AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRADE UNION |
Dispute concerning stocktaking arrangements.
Recommendation:
6. The Company declined to attend the Court hearing in this case
and the information before the Court is limited to that supplied
by the Trade Union.
The Court is of the view that the Company is entitled to set its
policy regarding staff purchases and the times at which they are
made. The staff must abide by their conditions of employment
insofar as the working of overtime is concerned but, in the
absence of negotiated agreement, are not obliged to exceed these
commitments. They should not be subject to a threat of
disciplinary action for not doing so.
The Court recommends that the Company withdraw the threat and that
the parties negotiate a sensible settlement to the issue.
Division: CHAIRMAN Mr McHenry Mr Devine
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD89436 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12532
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1969
SECTION 20(1)
PARTIES: DUNNES STORES (BISHOPSTOWN) LIMITED
and
IRISH DISTRIBUTIVE AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRADE UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning stocktaking arrangements.
BACKGROUND:
2. For many years stocktaking, which occurs some four times a
year, took place on Monday evenings, after work. Some years ago
this was changed to Saturday evenings, a night which according to
the Union, staff found less attractive. The Union also alleges
that in practice only a small number of full-time staff
participated in Saturday evening stocktaking and that recently the
Company began to insist on availability for stocktaking and all
new staff have since then had availability for such stocktaking
included as a condition in their contract of employment.
3. A new staff manageress was appointed in early 1989. In March
a dispute arose when she informed the staff that they would no
longer be allowed to shop in the store during the trading hours,
including during their lunch-breaks. This change in policy was
resented and staff, other than those whose contract for
availability requirements oblige them to be available for
stocktaking, indicated to Management that they would not be
available for stocktaking on the evening of the 1st April. The
Company objected and the staff concerned were spoken to both
individually and collectively and were asked to give undertakings
that they would be available for stocktaking. When such
undertakings were not forthcoming, they were given letters asking
them to "reflect very carefully on the implications of a refusal..
to participate in this stocktake....". The staff concerned did
not participate in stocktaking on the 1st April and were given
further letters on the 6th April notifying them of a further
stocktake on the 1st July and threatening disciplinary action
should they fail to participate.
4. Following failure to resolve the issue at local level, the
Union referred the matter to the Labour Court under Section 20(1)
of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969, agreeing beforehand to
accept the Court's recommendation. A Court hearing was held in
Cork on the 28th June, 1989, at which the Company did not attend.
In view of its non-attendance, the Court sent the Company a copy
of the Union's submission for its observations. The Company wrote
to the Court on the 13th July, declining to comment.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
5. 1. The Company's insistence on compulsory overtime for
stock-taking in respect of those staff for whom it is not a
condition of employment is unacceptable because it is
(a) out of line with custom and practice;
(b) does not form part of the contractual obligation of
the staff concerned in the dispute, a fact which
was recognised by the Company since it included a
new clause involving such a liability in recent
contracts for new staff;
(c) is out of line with the Cork Retail Drapery Trade
Agreement which provides that 24 hours notice shall
be given by a staff member in the event of
unavailability for late night working.
2. The Company should withdraw its threats to the staff
concerned and should return to custom and practice which
recognises that overtime for stocktaking is not compulsory and
the Court is asked to so recommend.
RECOMMENDATION:
6. The Company declined to attend the Court hearing in this case
and the information before the Court is limited to that supplied
by the Trade Union.
The Court is of the view that the Company is entitled to set its
policy regarding staff purchases and the times at which they are
made. The staff must abide by their conditions of employment
insofar as the working of overtime is concerned but, in the
absence of negotiated agreement, are not obliged to exceed these
commitments. They should not be subject to a threat of
disciplinary action for not doing so.
The Court recommends that the Company withdraw the threat and that
the parties negotiate a sensible settlement to the issue.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Heffernan
24th August, 1989 ----------------
D.H./U.S. Chairman