Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD89678 Case Number: LCR12632 Section / Act: S67 Parties: PENNEYS LIMITED - and - IRISH DISTRIBUTIVE AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRADE UNION |
Claim by the Union that two part-time workers be appointed to full time positions.
Recommendation:
5. Having considered the submissions from the parties the Court
recommends that the Company and Union immediately commence
negotiations on the hours and numbers which are required in the
store.
Pending the outcome of these negotiations the Company should agree
to the Union claim that the previous ratio of part-time to
full-time staff be restored.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Shiel Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD89678 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12632
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: PENNEYS LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATION OF IRISH EMPLOYERS)
and
IRISH DISTRIBUTIVE AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRADE UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim by the Union that two part-time workers be appointed to
full time positions.
BACKGROUND:
2. Following a refurbishment to Penney's outlet in Phibsboro in
January, 1989 the Company reopened the store with a view to
targeting the young consumer. It retained its staffing level at 6
full-time and 4 part-time workers. In May, 1989 two full time
workers approached the Company and requested that they be given
part time employment for domestic reasons. The Company acceded to
this request and the two workers took up part-time employment in
August, 1989. The Union has accepted this arrangement but in
return claims that two existing part-time workers should now be
appointed to full time positions. The Company rejected the claim
on the grounds that the operation of the store does not warrant
the appointment of full time staff. As a result of the new
arrangement the staffing situation is now 4 full time and 6 part
time staff. The Union claims that this is in breach of the
Drapery Trade Registered Employment Agreement concerning ratios of
full time to part time staff. Local discussions failed to resolve
the issue and the matter was referred to the conciliation service
of the Labour Court on the 4th August, 1989. A conciliation
conference was held on the 26th September, 1989 but no agreement
was reached. The dispute was referred to the Labour Court for
investigation and recommendation. A Court hearing was held on
the 23rd October, 1989.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The proposal to appoint two existing part-time workers to
full time positions would involve no additional cost to the
Company. The Dublin and Dun Laoghaire Drapery Registered
Trade Agreement to which the Company is a party stipulates
that only one part-time worker should be employed for up to
four full-time workers. The Company is in breach of this
Agreement.
2. The Union has offered to negotiate a new ratio with the
Company but to no avail. The Company has expressed
dissatisfaction with the existing situation but refuses to do
anything to rectify the present imbalance in relation to
full-time/part-time staff.
3. It is clear from the Company's action that it prefers a
totally unfettered approach to the use of part-time staff
which has the effect of minimising full-time employment. The
Company recently informed the Union that they were recruiting
two more part-time staff presumably to do the work left undone
by the reduction in hours brought about by the creation of two
part-time jobs.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The appointment of additional full-time staff is not
merited at this particular store. Notwithstanding
considerable investment in this newly refurbished new concept
store, (which is a pilot scheme) the level of trading is less
than expected and the outlook is no better. Fixed and
floating costs have increased considerably, and any additional
financial burden would place the store at a further
competitive disadvantage at this difficult trading time.
2. Flexibility is essential because of the changing shop
patterns with peaks and lows resulting in a major portion of
business being transacted in less than 50% of the trading
hours. Staff requirements are determined by the level of
business in the store and this fact has been confirmed by the
Court in a previous recommendation. The Company is willing to
have discussions with the Union on ratios of full-time to
part-time staff and already has new agreements in this area in
force in some of its other outlets.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. Having considered the submissions from the parties the Court
recommends that the Company and Union immediately commence
negotiations on the hours and numbers which are required in the
store.
Pending the outcome of these negotiations the Company should agree
to the Union claim that the previous ratio of part-time to
full-time staff be restored.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Evelyn Owens
_____________________
14th November, 1989 Deputy Chairman.
T.O'D./J.C.