Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD9290 Case Number: LCR13614 Section / Act: S20(1) Parties: WM. TODD & CO LTD (LIMERICK) - and - A WORKER |
Dispute concerning selection for redundancy.
Recommendation:
5. In the circumstances of this case the Court recommends that
Wm. Todd & Co as agent for Allibert, offer and the Union accept,
an additional sum of money equivalent to 12 weeks' pay and Wm.
Todd & Co undertake to offer the claimant the first suitable
vacancy that arises.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Keogh Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD9290 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13614
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES: WM. TODD & CO LTD (LIMERICK)
and
A WORKER
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning selection for redundancy.
BACKGROUND:
2. In July, 1981 Sommer Allibert (U.K.) Ltd set-up business at a
concession outlet in WM. Todd & Co. Ltd of Limerick. The store is
part of the Switzer group. Two part-time workers were recruited
to look after the outlet. Prior to taking up their positions with
the concessionaire both workers were employed with Todds. The
worker concerned was employed for about 12 weeks and the second
worker for 2 years. In October, 1991 the concessionaire announced
that it was closing down all its outlets in Ireland. The workers
were informed by letter that their employment would cease at the
close of business on 23rd November, 1991, and that they would be
paid redundancy payments similar to the terms agreed in 1990 with
workers in the Switzer Group. In a letter to the Company dated
19th November, 1991, the Union stated that the workers wanted
their employment with Todds to continue. The Union claims that
both workers should get similar jobs to the jobs they held prior
to moving to the concession outlet. The Company rejected the
claim but indicated that, as it had a vacancy it was prepared to
offer a part-time position to one of the workers. Industrial
action, which was ballotted for, was avoided at the worker's
behest. The worker accepted an offer of a temporary position to
cover the Christmas period. It was decided to refer the matter to
a third party. The Employer refused to attend a Rights
Commissioner's investigation. The Union then referred the dispute
to the Labour Court under Section 20(1) of the Industrial
Relations Act, 1969 and agreed to be bound by the Court's
recommendation. The Court hearing took place on 3rd March, 1992.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The worker was employed by the Company as a full-time
sales assistant in 1972/1973. When she rejoined the Company
in April, 1981 she completed a Switzer Group application form.
2. At the request of the Company's personnel manager she
moved to the concession outlet on 16th July, 1981. At that
time she was interviewed by a representative of Allibert and
the personnel manager. There was no mention of a probation
period when she rejoined the Company on 16th April, 1981 or
when she moved to the concession outlet.
3. The worker considered the transfer to the concession
outlet as an internal departmental transfer.
4. When concession outlets closed in the past it was
acknowledged that Switzers had a responsibility to the staff.
In some cases written agreements exist which provide that in
the event of closure, of a concession, the staff would revert
to the employment of the Switzer group.
5. As a result of a recent rationalisation agreement
involving the Union the number of part-time jobs has
increased. There is sufficient flexibility within the Company
to accommodate the worker in a part-time position.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company has no obligation towards an employee or
ex-employee of a concessionaire.
2. The worker was clearly an employee of Allibert and
personnel records verify her appointment on a 3 months trial
basis.
3. The worker's employment with Todds was part-time
temporary relief. Her employment record bears the words,
relief, 3 days, only temporary.
4. The Company has treated the worker fairly in that it
offered her a temporary position for the Christmas period.
5. There is no vacancy for which the worker can be
considered and the Company is not in a position to increase
its staffing costs.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. In the circumstances of this case the Court recommends that
Wm. Todd & Co as agent for Allibert, offer and the Union accept,
an additional sum of money equivalent to 12 weeks' pay and Wm.
Todd & Co undertake to offer the claimant the first suitable
vacancy that arises.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Evelyn Owens
-----------------
8th April, 1992
F.B/U.S. Deputy Chairman
NOTE:
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Fran Brennan, Court Secretary.