Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD90374 Case Number: LCR12999 Section / Act: S20(1) Parties: CONVERTA LIMITED - and - A WORKER |
Dispute concerning alleged worsening of conditions of employment.
Recommendation:
6. The Court has fully considered the oral and written
submissions of the parties.
The Court considers that in all the circumstances of the Company,
as outlined, changes were necessary if the future of the venture
was to be secured.
The Court finds it a cause of regret that relations between the
parties have deteriorated to the extent indicated by the
submissions.
If a climate is to be created where the energies of all concerned
can be directed to ensuring the future of the Company and the
employment of all concerned the relationships that currently exist
will have to be addressed.
Accordingly it is the view of the Court that the parties discuss
the situation with a view to creating an acceptable working
relationship or deciding in the interests of the parties and the
Company what alternative arrangements are necessary.
It is imperative these discussions are completed quickly.
Should the parties so desire the Court is prepared to make
available the assistance of an Industrial Relations Officer. The
Court so recommends.
Division: MrMcGrath Mr Collins Mr Devine
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD90374 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12999
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT 1969
SECTION 20(1)
PARTIES: CONVERTA LIMITED
AND
A WORKER
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning alleged worsening of conditions of
employment.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker concerned commenced her employment with Finnsales
Limited in 1983. She was secretary/assistant to her present
employer, who was then manager of the Converta Department within
Finnsales Limited. In 1985 a new company, Converta Limited, was
set up with the claimant's employer as managing director and she
as his assistant/sales secretary. In March, 1988, the Company
re-located to Tallaght. In 1989, following losses, the parent
Company announced its intention of closing down some parts of its
operation and offered the managing director the option of buying
out the Company. He accepted this (details supplied to the
Court). Following the buy-out there were three employees left in
the Company, the managing director, his brother and the claimant.
3. The worker alleges that in recent months her conditions of
employment have worsened and her duties and responsibilities have
been eroded. She further claims that both direct discussions and
correspondence with her employer failed to improve the situation.
She referred the matter to a Rights Commissioner but the Company
declined to attend. She subsequently referred the matter to the
Labour Court under Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act,
1969, agreeing to be bound by the Court's recommendation. A Court
hearing was held on the 24th July, 1990.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. Lengthy negotiations were held throughout 1989 concerning
the Management buy-out of the Company. During these
negotiations staff were assured that no job losses would occur
and that conditions would be the same as before, if not
better.
4. 2. In September, 1989, a deterioration began in staff
relations within the office. Initially the claimant regarded
this as part of the pressure on her employer to successfully
conclude the takeover but matters escalated to the point where
he began to adopt an unreasonable attitude towards all aspects
of her work and began to gradually erode and diminish her
responsibilities within the Company. Some of her duties were
assigned to his 20 year old brother who had joined in July,
1989 (details supplied to the Court).
3. In March, 1990, the claimant was informed that her car
allowance was to be discontinued. This was worth
approximately #3,500 per annum, tax free and was given to her
as compensation for the additional travel when the move to
Tallaght took place and for the occasional use of the car on
Company business. No compensation was to be offered in lieu
of the allowance.
4. The claimant is unaware of any other staff being unhappy
about working with her. Furthermore, it is only recently that
any problems have arisen regarding her standard of English.
The claimant refutes the allegation that her standard of
written English is poor.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
5. 1. Several staff members expressed the view that the claimant
was difficult to work with. Indeed one employee (the
claimant's assistant) left the Company because she could not
work with her (details supplied to the Court).
2. Following her assistant's departure it became evident to
the employer that the claimant's written English was not
always very good. Prior to this her assistant would edit her
work when typing it. The employer had to occasionally alter
her work to make it acceptable.
3. The claimant's time-keeping was poor and deteriorated to
the stage where her employer had to send her a memo reminding
her of operating hours.
4. The claimant's allegations regarding her work being given
to the employer's brother are groundless. He is only 20 years
old and is studying accountancy by night. He is employed to
do general work and can hardly be viewed as a contender for
the claimant's post.
5. Private cars were used for Company business and her
allowance was taken away because of the need to cut costs.
She wasn't doing any travelling so it was wasteful to have to
pay her a car allowance. Furthermore, contrary to what she
claims, the allowance was not given to her as an inducement to
move to Tallaght.
RECOMMENDATION:
6. The Court has fully considered the oral and written
submissions of the parties.
The Court considers that in all the circumstances of the Company,
as outlined, changes were necessary if the future of the venture
was to be secured.
The Court finds it a cause of regret that relations between the
parties have deteriorated to the extent indicated by the
submissions.
If a climate is to be created where the energies of all concerned
can be directed to ensuring the future of the Company and the
employment of all concerned the relationships that currently exist
will have to be addressed.
Accordingly it is the view of the Court that the parties discuss
the situation with a view to creating an acceptable working
relationship or deciding in the interests of the parties and the
Company what alternative arrangements are necessary.
It is imperative these discussions are completed quickly.
Should the parties so desire the Court is prepared to make
available the assistance of an Industrial Relations Officer. The
Court so recommends.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court,
Tom McGrath
__29th__August,___1990. ___________________
D. H. / M. F. Deputy Chairman