Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD89462 Case Number: LCR12534 Section / Act: S67 Parties: SWITZER AND COMPANY - and - IRISH DISTRIBUTIVE AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRADE UNION |
Demotion of a worker.
Recommendation:
5. Having considered the submissions in this case it is the view
of the Court that the worker concerned failed to manage
effectively what was an admittedly difficult department and that
the terms originally negotiated and agreed between the Union and
the Company should therefore be accepted by her.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr Shiel Mr O'Murchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD89462 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12534
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: SWITZER AND COMPANY
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATED UNION OF EMPLOYERS)
and
IRISH DISTRIBUTIVE AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRADE UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Demotion of a worker.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker commenced work as a sales assistant in the Henry
Street branch of Switzers in 1978 and in 1982 was promoted to
Department Sales Manager in the fashion and clothing area at that
branch. In 1986 the Henry Street branch was closed. The worker
then transferred to a similar position in the Grafton Street
branch. In August, 1987 the worker was transferred as Department
Sales Manager to the electrical department. The Company contends
that in the spring of 1988 it became apparent to Management that
there were administration and security problems in the electrical
department. The Company contends that the worker, as manager of
the electrical department, was responsible for dealing with those
problems with the assistance of Management if required. The Union
contends that these problems existed in the electrical department
long before the worker took up duty in the department in August,
1987 and that the Company unfairly blamed the worker for problems
which she had inherited. The Company issued a number of written
and verbal warnings to the worker between April, 1988 and October,
1988 to the effect that if the problems in the electrical
department were not resolved by her as Manager her future with the
Company would be reviewed. With effect from 15th November, 1988
the Company demoted the worker to her former position as sales
assistant on the grounds that she had failed in her duties as a
departmental sales manager. The following provisions were
incorporated with the demotion:-
(a) The worker will transfer to a fashion department.
(b) Her rate of pay will be at the selling rate plus
commission.
(c) Her earnings will be maintained for six months, i.e. any
loss of earnings related to her new position will be
re-imbursed to her on an on-going basis.
The worker and the Union contested the decision and as
agreement was not reached at local level the matter was
referred to the conciliation service of the Labour Court
on 29th November, 1988. A conciliation conference was
held on 20th March, 1989 (earliest date suitable to the
parties) and as no agreement was reached the matter was
referred on 21st June, 1989 to a full hearing of the
Labour Court which took place on 3rd August, 1989.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Union recognises that there were serious problems in
the electrical department but does not accept that they were
the workers responsibility. The attitude of store management
was that the "buck" stops with the worker concerned. This was
completely unfair.
2. The electrical department was going downhill long before
the worker had been appointed to it. There was a backlog to
1983 in some areas. It was unfair to blame the worker for
problems which had existed prior to her appointment to the
electrical department.
3. Some of the problems in the electrical department related
to staff. When the worker requested assistance from the
personnel department she got not response.
4. The Union recommends that the demotion be set aside and
that the worker be re-instated in her capacity as a department
sales manager from 15th November, 1988 in the fashion area.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company made every effort to assist the worker in the
management of the electrical department. Despite requests
from the Company the worker refused to accept that the
management of staff was her responsibility.
2. When the problems in the electrical department became
apparent it was the responsibility of the worker as
departmental manager to resolve the problems with assistance
from management if necessary. The worker did not attempt to
resolve these problems and therefore failed in her duties as
departmental manager.
3. The worker was continually made aware of the areas of her
performance which the Company found to be deficient. Despite
numerous requests from management she failed to indentify
staff problems and despite repeated warnings of the
consequences her performance as a manager did not come up to
the standards expected by the Company. Accordingly the
Company was left with no other choice but to demote the worker
to her previous position.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. Having considered the submissions in this case it is the view
of the Court that the worker concerned failed to manage
effectively what was an admittedly difficult department and that
the terms originally negotiated and agreed between the Union and
the Company should therefore be accepted by her.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
_______________________
28th August, 1989 Deputy Chairman.
A.S./J.C.