Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD88957 Case Number: AD8924 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: POWERS SUPERMARKETS LIMITED - and - IRISH DISTRIBUTIVE AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRADE UNION |
Appeal by the Union against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation No. BC 135/88.
Recommendation:
5. Having regard to the circumstances prevailing in the Cork area
the Court is of the opinion that the Rights Commissioner's
Recommendation is fair and should stand.
The Court so decides.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr McHenry Mr O'Murchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD88957 APPEAL DECISION NO. AD2489
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 13(9)
PARTIES: POWERS SUPERMARKETS LIMITED
QUINNSWORTH
and
IRISH DISTRIBUTIVE AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRADE UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Appeal by the Union against Rights Commissioner's
Recommendation No. BC 135/88.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker concerned was employed by the Company on 30th
October, 1984 on a part-time basis in one of its Cork branches.
On 29th April, 1985 the worker was appointed on a full-time basis
when he joined the Cork based audit team. On 19th August, 1987
the Union was informed by the Company that the stock audit team
was being disbanded. The Company similarly informed the Union
concerned that the Dublin team consisting of fifteen workers was
also to be disbanded. In Dublin this took place following the
acceptance of terms put by the Company by ten workers and five who
were made redundant on the basis of L.C.R. No. 11619. The Cork
based audit team was disbanded in October, 1987. Seven of the
workers volunteered for redundancy, one sought and was given a
transfer to a sales position in one of the Company's stores in
Cork and two continued in a revised audit function. The worker
concerned here was out sick at the time and advised the Company in
February, 1988 that he was fit to resume work. The Company
informed the worker that it was not in a position to offer him
employment and offered him the same redundancy terms as accepted
by some of the other workers in the audit team which amounted to
#3,317 in his case. This was unacceptable to the worker who
wished to return to work and the matter was referred to a Rights
Commissioner for investigation and recommendation. A Rights
Commissioner investigated the dispute on 29th June, 1988 and
issued the following recommendation-
"...In the light of the above I believe that the problem
could best be resolved in the following manner and I
recommend accordingly. Having noted the Company's
genuine efforts to achieve agreements I recommend
that management serious and favourable consideration
to accommodating the worker in another position
within the Cork area. Should such accommodation be
not forthcoming within three months from the date of
this recommendation, the matter should then be
referred back to me for a final recommendation."
(The worker was referred to by name in the
recommendation).
The Company's position was that it had no employment to offer the
worker. This was unacceptable to the worker who wished to
continue in employment. The Union subsequently referred the
matter back to the Rights Commissioner for a final recommendation
which was issued in November, 1988.
"...I recommend that Quinnsworth Ltd. should either
appoint the worker to an acceptable position with the
Cork area within fourteen days of receipt of my
recommendation or alternatively pay to him the sum of
#4,500."
(The worker was referred to by name in the
recommendation).
On 12th December, 1988 the Union appealed the Rights
Commissioner's recommendation to the Labour Court under Section
13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. The Court heard the
appeal on 8th March, 1989.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Company in its submission to the Labour Court in
relation to the Dublin audit team, specifically outlined three
options to the workers including one of transfer to another
job with compensation for loss of rate to be negotiated
(L.C.R. No. 11619 refers). The same options should be
available to this worker. The worker has already served his
probationary period and has been found to be satisfactory. It
is not credible that the Company cannot find suitable
employment for him in the Cork area.
2. It was clearly understood at the time of the original
redundancy negotiations that this worker would not be treated
differently to other members of the team. Denying him the
option of returning to work is out of line with the treatment
of other workers in the audit team and is not therefore
acceptable. The worker has now been out of work for over a
year and should have the option of returning to work in the
Cork area of the Company.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company was forced to disband both its Cork and Dublin
audit teams as it could no longer sustain the high operational
costs involved. The worker was interviewed in accordance with
the Rights Commissioner's recommendation but the Company was
not in a position to offer him the type of position he was
seeking. The Company has recently closed its Hollyhill Cork
branch and has absorbed the workers into other Cork branches
which are now in effect overstaffed. Therefore, the Company
is not in a position to consider the worker for employment and
he should accept the lump sum of #4,500.
DECISION:
5. Having regard to the circumstances prevailing in the Cork area
the Court is of the opinion that the Rights Commissioner's
Recommendation is fair and should stand.
The Court so decides.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court,
John O'Connell
___________________
20th March, 1989. Deputy Chairman
U.M./J.C.