Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD89570 Case Number: LCR12584 Section / Act: S20(1) Parties: QUINNSWORTH - and - IRISH DISTRIBUTIVE AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRADE UNION |
Claim on behalf of a canteen cook for a transfer to a full-time position on the shop floor.
Recommendation:
RECOMMENDATI0N:
5. The Court considers in the light of the submissions of the
parties and the medical evidence put forward that the approach
of the Company in seeking to resolve the issue was reasonable.
Accordingly the Court does not recommend concession of the
Union's claim.
~
Division: MrMcGrath Mr McHenry Mr Devine
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD89570 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12584
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
SECTION 20(1)
PARTIES: QUINNSWORTH
AND
IRISH DISTRIBUTIVE AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRADE UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim on behalf of a canteen cook for a transfer to a
full-time position on the shop floor.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker concerned commenced full-time employment in the
staff canteen as a cook on 4th October, 1982. The worker has been
absent on sick leave since 13th January, 1989 due to the fact that
she has been suffering from claustrophobia. In 1988, following
renovations in the Stillorgan store, the location of the staff
canteen was moved and it no longer had any windows in it. The
worker's doctor in a report in March, 1989 stated that, "Her
present working conditions are inducing her symptoms. I feel that
she would do better if she was able to move to a more spacious and
better ventilated area in the shop." In May, 1989, the Union
wrote to the Company requesting a meeting to discuss the transfer
of the worker to a job on the shop floor. The Company's response
was that it was not in a position to transfer the worker but that
it would hold the worker's job open for her. Local level
discussions took place during the course of which a severance
payment of #2,500/#3,000 was offered and later the Company offered
the worker a pro-rata position in the supermarket (part-time sales
assistant), with the proviso that consideration, would be given to
appointing her to a full-time position if such a vacancy arose.
Both offers were rejected. On 21st August, 1989 the Union
referred the matter to the Labour Court under Section 20(1) of the
Industrial Relations Act, 1969. The Union agreed to be bound by
the recommendation of the Court. The Court investigated the
dispute on 18th September, 1989.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. During the course of discussions on this issue a Company
official stated that the worker had in fact rejected the offer
of a full-time job on the shop floor. The worker denied that
she had been offered such a job and the Union informed the
Company that she would be happy to take up this position.
However, after this the Company stated that they had meant a
pro-rata job. If the worker was to take up a pro-rata job her
hours would be liable to change from day to day and she could
be working less than twenty five hours a week.
2. The Union is in no doubt that the Company can accommodate
the worker in a transfer of job, in line with her doctor's
recommendation that she is fit to return to work, but that she
should return to a different area (details supplied to the
Court). This year the Company has employed two full-time
workers in the Stillorgan branch who had been employed in
another branch which had closed. The Company has been
insensitive and has failed to act positively in this worker's
case. The worker should be re-engaged in full-time employment
in the shop area and she should be paid a sum of money
equivalent to her net losses since 15th March, 1989.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. Medical opinion consulted by management indicates that the
condition suffered by the worker could be caused by many
factors outside of her working environment. Also, that the
change of canteens would not bring on this condition and it is
questionable whether a transfer to the shop floor would cure
the condition. Management cannot create a precedent which
would allow staff members returning from an absence due to
illness to expect a change of job on demand.
2. The worker was employed as a cook and it is unreasonable
for the worker to expect a full-time position on the shop
floor. In the interest of resolving the matter management has
offered the worker a pro-rata sales assistant position on the
checkout which would involve 25/30 hours a week, with the
possibility of full-time in the future. The decision to make
staff appointments of any category must in the final analysis
rest with management and is subject to the level of trade.
The worker should either accept the pro-rata position offered
or, if she feels she is unable to return to her position in
the canteen, authorise the union to negotiate a severance
payment.
RECOMMEMDATION:
5. The Court considers in the light of the submissions of the
parties and the medical evidence put forward that the approach of
the Company in seeking to resolve the issue was reasonable.
Accordingly the Court does not recommend concession of the Union's
claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court,
Tom McGrath
__3rd__October,___1989. ___________________
U. M. / M. F. Deputy Chairman