Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD89882 Case Number: LCR12737 Section / Act: S20(1) Parties: DUNNES STORES (CORNELSCOURT) LTD - and - IRISH DISTRIBUTIVE AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRADE UNION |
Claim by the Union concerning:- (A) Car park duties at the Company's Cornelscourt Branch. (B) The assignment of a worker to duties in the car park. (C) Refusal of the Company to meet its workers and the Union when the dispute required discussions between the parties.
Recommendation:
4. The Court considered the written and verbal submissions of the
union and noted that management did not respond to the Court
invitation to participate at the hearing.
The Court believes:-
(i) it is unreasonable to assign permanent staff, who have
not been employed solely for carpark duties,
indefinitely on such work.
(ii) that management is prepared to discuss the issue which
is before the Court.
The Court therefore recommends:-
(1) That the parties meet without delay to agree a rota system
whereby permanent staff are assigned to carpark duties.
(2) Such a rota system should examine the feasibility of
excluding long service employees without interfering with
the Company objective of supervising the carpark.
(3) That the worker immediately involved in the claim be
re-assigned to other sales assistant duties no later that 3
months from the date he took up the latest carpark duty.
This time limit should not be taken as a precedent in
subsequent discussion on a rota.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Heffernan
5th February, 1990 ----------------
A. McG/U.S. Chairman
Division: CHAIRMAN Mr Keogh Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD89882 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12737
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 20(1)
PARTIES: DUNNES STORES (CORNELSCOURT) LTD
and
IRISH DISTRIBUTIVE AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRADE UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim by the Union concerning:-
(A) Car park duties at the Company's Cornelscourt Branch.
(B) The assignment of a worker to duties in the car park.
(C) Refusal of the Company to meet its workers and the
Union when the dispute required discussions between the
parties.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company's car park has always been manned by one full-time
member of its male workforce. The duties attaching to the
position include trolley collection, litter bin maintenance, car
park cleaness and traffic control. Over the years, the car park
duty has been unpopular and a cause of complaint because of the
indefinite periods of assignment to the duty for some workers.
The post is generally regarded as a junior position. Normally it
is filled by a junior member of the workforce who in time moves to
other duties such as stock duties, shelve packing or check-out
duties. Recently the Company have assigned senior workers to car
park duties without seeking agreement. The Company contends that
all workers have a liability for such duties under their terms and
conditions of employment. It is the Union's contention that
workers should not do car park duties except by agreement. There
is no provision in their contracts of employment stating that
workers have a liability for car park duties. The worker
concerned with this dispute has 4 years service. He has been
assigned to check-out duties for the past year. (He was assigned
to car park duties for 2.50 years while employed as a part-timer).
Prior to Christmas the worker was assigned, without agreement, to
car park duties. The Company refused to discuss the issue with
the Union. On 1st December, 1989 the Union referred the dispute
to the Labour Court under Section 20(1) of the Industrial
Relations Act, 1969, agreeing to be bound by the Court's
recommendation. The Court investigated the dispute on 11th
January, 1990. As the Company did not attend at the investigation
the Court issued a letter inviting thier response to the issues in
dispute.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. Workers should only be assigned to duties in the car
park by way of agreement. There is no provision in their
contracts of employment giving a liability for those duties.
There is no written contracts confirming the Company's
contention that all workers are liable for car park assignment
under their terms and conditions of employment.
2. The worker concerned with the dispute was appointed to
the position in the car park prior to Christmas. The worker
was assigned against his will and is now working there 'under
protest'. The Company refused to meet the workers and the
Union to discuss the issue. (Recently the Company indicated
its willingness to meet but added that the position would not
change).
3. The Union put the following settlement proposals to the
Company:-
(A) That car park duties be rotated amongst new staff
and that the Company inform them of their
liability for such work before they commence
employment.
(B) That the Company advertise the position in the car
park, specifying the duties attaching to the post
- applicants would then know that they are liable
to work in the car park until they gain promotion
elsewhere.
Both proposals were rejected by the Company. Workers now fear
that the Company will use their present stance to victimise
them.
4. The Court should recommend that;-
(1) no present member of the workforce is appointed to
car park duties without that worker's agreement.
(2) the worker concerned with the dispute is
immediately given back his duties in the store,
which he held prior to his appointment in the car
park.
(3) the Company meet the Union within a reasonable time
after a meeting is requested.
RECOMMENDATION:
4. The Court considered the written and verbal submissions of the
union and noted that management did not respond to the Court
invitation to participate at the hearing.
The Court believes:-
(i) it is unreasonable to assign permanent staff, who have
not been employed solely for carpark duties,
indefinitely on such work.
(ii) that management is prepared to discuss the issue which
is before the Court.
The Court therefore recommends:-
(1) That the parties meet without delay to agree a rota system
whereby permanent staff are assigned to carpark duties.
(2) Such a rota system should examine the feasibility of
excluding long service employees without interfering with
the Company objective of supervising the carpark.
(3) That the worker immediately involved in the claim be
re-assigned to other sales assistant duties no later that 3
months from the date he took up the latest carpark duty.
This time limit should not be taken as a precedent in
subsequent discussion on a rota.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Heffernan
5th February, 1990 ----------------
A. McG/U.S. Chairman