Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD89695 Case Number: AD8988 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: THORN E.M.I. - and - MANUFACTURING SCIENCE FINANCE |
Appeal by the Union against Rights Commissioners Recommendation No. C.W. 152/89 concerning the hours of work of a part-time worker.
Recommendation:
I recommend that the Union accepts the worker's present rota
over 5 days, and that the Company increase her hours to 22
1/2 per week and enters discussions with the Union regarding
any possible future changes in the present hours and rota
agreement at other outlets."
The worker was referred to by name in the Rights Commissioners
Recommendation.
5. The Union appealed the recommendation to the Labour Court
under Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. The
Court heard the appeal on the 7th November, 1989.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
6. 1. The Union considers that the Rights Commissioner's
recommendation is in breach of Labour Court Recommendation No.
L.C.R. 6584 which was issued in 1981 and recommended on
various issues in connection with part-time workers. It was
following the issue of this recommendation that an agreement
was entered into on the hours of work for part-time workers
i.e. 3 day week, 9.30 a.m. to 5 p.m. on a predetermined rota
basis.
2. In his Findings, the Rights Commissioner acknowledges that
the Company cannot unilaterally introduce changes for
part-time workers and should not do so without agreement. The
Union believes that the recommendation that should have been
issued is - "That the parties enter into negotiations with a
view to reaching modifications acceptable to both sides.
Failing reaching agreement that the matter be referred to the
Court having regard to L.C.R. 6584 and subsequent agreements
reached at local level." In the meantime the existing
arrangements which have been agreed should be applied to the
worker in question.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
7. 1. The rental trade generally has suffered major job losses
as a result of high levels of competition particularly from
the retail trade which can offer consumer choices such as
extended shopping hours. Any decision to recruit had only
been made after careful consideration of business and customer
needs. The conditions of employment for the post were clearly
explained to and understood by all applicants for this
position. The worker concerned clearly understood the
conditions and indeed indicated that they suited her domestic
arrangements. She has not applied for any other posts, either
part-time or full-time which have been advertised internally
over the past number of months.
2. The Company believes its action was appropriate and within
the terms of what the Union originally argued before the Court
in 1981, i.e. that the days of the week which a part-timer is
expected to work should be arranged between the staff and
management at local branches. What the Company has introduced
does not run counter to this. The Company has sought to
appoint a person to a part-time position after having
considered the needs of a particular showroom and long term
changes in consumer demands.
DECISION:
8. The Court recognises the need of the Company to effect change
which will respond to the perceived changes in customer demand.
The Court also recognises however that agreement exists regarding
the working time and rotas of employees. This agreement was
unilaterally breached by the Company in this case. The Court
considers the changes required by the Company as a consequence of
changes in customer demand should be the subject of immediate
discussions between the parties through the normal industrial
relations procedures with a view to the introduction of acceptable
staffing arrangements.
In the interim and pending the outcome of the above negotiations
the Court considers the employee concerned should be allowed to
work the present rota adjusted as accepted by the Company to 22.50
hours per week.
The Court so decides.
Division: MrMcGrath Mr McHenry Mr Devine
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD89695 APPEAL DECISION NO. AD8889
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 13(9)
PARTIES: THORN E.M.I.
and
MANUFACTURING SCIENCE FINANCE
SUBJECT:
1. Appeal by the Union against Rights Commissioners
Recommendation No. C.W. 152/89 concerning the hours of work of a
part-time worker.
BACKGROUND:
2. Thorn E.M.I. is a major Company within the home electronics
trade. The primary focus of the business is the supply and rental
of televisions, video and audio equipment. The Company competes
in its market through a number of showroom outlets throughout
Ireland.
3. In May, 1989 the Company recruited a part-time worker for its
North Earl Street branch. Her hours of work were set at 20 hours
a week spread over 5 days. Her core hours were from 11 a.m. to 3.
p.m. outside of this normal overtime arrangements apply. The
Union objected to these hours of work on the basis that they were
in breach of agreed practice and sought to have the worker put on
a 3 day working week 9.00 a.m. to 5.30 p.m. on pre-determined days
by a rota system. The Company replied that the worker concerned
was recruited to meet specific customer demands at its North Earl
Street Branch and that the worker concerned fully understood the
conditions of employment under which she was recruited.
4. The dispute was referred to a Rights Commissioner for
investigation and recommendation. The Rights Commissioner
investigated the dispute on the 21st September, 1989, after which
he issued the following recommendation dated 25th September,
1989:-
"Findings
I accept that for all existing part-time workers a three day
week (9 to 5.30 p.m.), subject to rota, is a matter of
agreement between the parties and cannot be changed except
through negotiation and agreement. It appears that the
worker concerned is a replacement, albeit after 2 years, for
a part-time worker who left the North Earl Street outlet. I
believe that the Company has the right to respond to
perceived changes in customer demands, and this may impinge
on hours of attendance required for part-time workers. I
consider that the Company cannot unilaterally introduce
changes for existing point 5 workers and should not do so for
new ones without agreement. With a possible growth in the
use of part-time workers I feel that the Union/Company
Agreement could be modified to meet such situations in the
future.
Recommendation
I recommend that the Union accepts the worker's present rota
over 5 days, and that the Company increase her hours to 22
1/2 per week and enters discussions with the Union regarding
any possible future changes in the present hours and rota
agreement at other outlets."
The worker was referred to by name in the Rights Commissioners
Recommendation.
5. The Union appealed the recommendation to the Labour Court
under Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. The
Court heard the appeal on the 7th November, 1989.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
6. 1. The Union considers that the Rights Commissioner's
recommendation is in breach of Labour Court Recommendation No.
L.C.R. 6584 which was issued in 1981 and recommended on
various issues in connection with part-time workers. It was
following the issue of this recommendation that an agreement
was entered into on the hours of work for part-time workers
i.e. 3 day week, 9.30 a.m. to 5 p.m. on a predetermined rota
basis.
2. In his Findings, the Rights Commissioner acknowledges that
the Company cannot unilaterally introduce changes for
part-time workers and should not do so without agreement. The
Union believes that the recommendation that should have been
issued is - "That the parties enter into negotiations with a
view to reaching modifications acceptable to both sides.
Failing reaching agreement that the matter be referred to the
Court having regard to L.C.R. 6584 and subsequent agreements
reached at local level." In the meantime the existing
arrangements which have been agreed should be applied to the
worker in question.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
7. 1. The rental trade generally has suffered major job losses
as a result of high levels of competition particularly from
the retail trade which can offer consumer choices such as
extended shopping hours. Any decision to recruit had only
been made after careful consideration of business and customer
needs. The conditions of employment for the post were clearly
explained to and understood by all applicants for this
position. The worker concerned clearly understood the
conditions and indeed indicated that they suited her domestic
arrangements. She has not applied for any other posts, either
part-time or full-time which have been advertised internally
over the past number of months.
2. The Company believes its action was appropriate and within
the terms of what the Union originally argued before the Court
in 1981, i.e. that the days of the week which a part-timer is
expected to work should be arranged between the staff and
management at local branches. What the Company has introduced
does not run counter to this. The Company has sought to
appoint a person to a part-time position after having
considered the needs of a particular showroom and long term
changes in consumer demands.
DECISION:
8. The Court recognises the need of the Company to effect change
which will respond to the perceived changes in customer demand.
The Court also recognises however that agreement exists regarding
the working time and rotas of employees. This agreement was
unilaterally breached by the Company in this case. The Court
considers the changes required by the Company as a consequence of
changes in customer demand should be the subject of immediate
discussions between the parties through the normal industrial
relations procedures with a view to the introduction of acceptable
staffing arrangements.
In the interim and pending the outcome of the above negotiations
the Court considers the employee concerned should be allowed to
work the present rota adjusted as accepted by the Company to 22.50
hours per week.
The Court so decides.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Tom McGrath
________________________
11th December, 1989. Deputy Chairman
M.D./J.C.