Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD91453 Case Number: LCR13471 Section / Act: S20(1) Parties: SHAMROCK APPAREL LIMITED - and - A WORKER |
Dispute concerning changes in a worker's terms and conditions of employment.
Recommendation:
5. Having regard to the agreed and well established procedures
for dealing with grievances incorporated in the Company/Union
agreement, and the fact that, apparently inadvertantly, they have
not been utilised in this instance by the claimant the Court
recommends that the worker concerned observe the agreed procedures
and arrange, if he still feels it necessary, to have the issues he
has raised processed in accordance with the terms of the
agreement.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr McHenry Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD91453 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13471
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT 1969
PARTIES: SHAMROCK APPAREL LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATION OF IRISH EMPLOYERS)
and
A WORKER
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning changes in a worker's terms and conditions
of employment.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker concerned commenced employment with the Company in
1987. He resigned in March, 1989 and rejoined the Company in
April, 1989. In April, 1991 he was laid-off by the Company due to
a fall-off in orders. The worker objected to being placed on
lay-off on the grounds that he was senior to other workers who
were kept on in the employment. He also disputed the Company's
statement that he was a part-time employee and claimed that he
was unfairly treated in relation to holiday pay, loss of earnings
and holiday work. He referred the dispute to a Rights
Commissioner for investigation but the Company objected to such an
investigation on the grounds that the worker did not process his
grievance through the appropriate stages as provided for in the
Company/Union Agreement (details supplied to the Court). The
worker subsequently referred the dispute to the Labour Court for
investigation and recommendation under Section 20(1) of the
Industrial Relations Act, 1969 and agreed to be bound by the
Court's recommendation. A Court hearing was held on the 1st
November, 1991.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. Since 1989 the worker concerned has been employed on
twelve-hour shifts every Saturday and Sunday. He also
provided cover for other workers absent due to sickness
holidays etc. He worked during previous lay-off periods and
trained other mechanics. He classed himself as a full-time
employee.
2. In April, 1991 Management placed the worker on lay-off and
stated that he was now classed as a part-time employee. He
disputed the Company's statement. Since being laid-off the
worker is receiving holiday pay at the rate of 6 hours per 100
worked. Previously he was paid an average day's pay per 120
hours worked. Holiday work normally covered by the worker
concerned was denied him by the Company in 1991. His earnings
have been greatly affected by these changes in the terms of
his employment.
3. The worker has adhered to the Company/Union Agreement in
processing his grievance through the appropriate procedures.
He missed one meeting with the Company and his Union
representative due to a mix-up in dates. He attempted to
refer the dispute to a Rights Commissioner without success due
to the Company's objection.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. Since the commencement of his employment in 1989 the
worker concerned has been classified as a part-time worker and
his normal working week is 24 hours. He has always been aware
of his status in the Company and when he required documents
for Department of Social Welfare purposes the Company issued
him with correspondence which confirmed his part-time status.
2. With regard to the worker's complaints on the lay-off,
holiday pay, loss of earnings etc, the Company is quite
prepared to discuss these issues with him through his Union
representative in formal meetings in accordance with the
Company/Union Agreement. The worker has not gone through the
appropriate stages of the procedure laid down in this
Agreement. The Company asks the Court to recommend that the
worker fulfil his obligations in respect of observing
procedures and to direct him back to local level discussions
where the issues in dispute can be dealt with in the proper
way.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. Having regard to the agreed and well established procedures
for dealing with grievances incorporated in the Company/Union
agreement, and the fact that, apparently inadvertantly, they have
not been utilised in this instance by the claimant the Court
recommends that the worker concerned observe the agreed procedures
and arrange, if he still feels it necessary, to have the issues he
has raised processed in accordance with the terms of the
agreement.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
__________________
13th November, 1991 Deputy Chairman
T.O'D./J.C.