Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD91586 Case Number: LCR13522 Section / Act: S20(1) Parties: DUNNES STORES - and - IRISH DISTRIBUTIVE AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRADE UNION |
(i) Compulsory transfer. (ii) Rates of pay for fork lift operator. (iii) New conditions of employment.
Recommendation:
6. The Court has considered the views expressed by the Union in
its oral and written submission.
The Court is disturbed at the absence of the employer. It is the
view of the Court that Management should recognise the rights and
interests of the employees and should with the workers and their
representatives foster good industrial relations. The parties
should have procedures which will enable the issues raised by
either party to be resolved in an equitable and peaceful manner.
In the issues put before the Court in this case the Court has had
to rely on the information put forward by the Union and in respect
of those issues recommends as follows:-
1. Transfer of Workers
The workers should be reinstated in the posts previously held
and the Company together with the Union and the
representatives should reach agreement on a procedure for the
transfer of staff.
2. Fork Lift Rate of Pay
The worker concerned should be paid an additional 4% on his
current rate of pay in respect of the responsibilities of his
job including his Fork Lift Driving skills.
3. Imposition of changes in conditions of employment
The Court recommends that changes in conditions of employment
of the staff should be the subject of negotiation with the
Union and its representatives and should not be imposed
unilaterally.
Division: MrMcGrath Mr Keogh Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD91586 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13522
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT 1969
PARTIES: DUNNES STORES
and
IRISH DISTRIBUTIVE AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRADE UNION
SUBJECT:
1. (i) Compulsory transfer.
(ii) Rates of pay for fork lift operator.
(iii) New conditions of employment.
BACKGROUND:
2. The staff concerned are employed in the Company's store in
Cornelscourt. The store was rebuilt last year. In the period
June to September, 1991, the Union wrote to the Company on several
occasions, requesting a meeting to discuss the implications which
the changeover to the new store would have for the staff. The
Company did not respond to the letters. The Union claim that
during the changeover to the new store, the Company attempted to
and in some cases imposed changes that were in breach of the
workers' contracts of employment. The Company claim that the
workers have no complaints. As no agreement could be reached at
local level the matter was referred 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
hearing took place on 25th November, 1991. The Company were not
represented at the Court hearing.
(i) COMPULSORY TRANSFER
Workers have recently been transferred from departments in which
they have worked for many years. One of the transferred workers
has worked for 20 years in the drapery department. The Union
claims management have targeted senior staff members for transfer.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. Workers have been transferred without consultation,
against their will and in a vindictive fashion.
2. Workers should be allowed to return to the duties they
held before the transfers and any subsequent transfers should
be agreed with the workers concerned.
(ii) FORK-LIFT OPERATOR'S RATE OF PAY
The worker concerned is employed with the Company since 1973. In
June/July, 1991, at the request of the Company he attended a
training course for fork-lift operators. On completion of the
course, the Union on his behalf submitted a claim for an increase
in his rate of pay. The Company rejected the claim.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The worker has extra responsibilities especially in the
area of safety because of his fork-lift duties.
2. The worker received a certificate of competence on
completion of the fork-lift operators' training course.
(iii) NEW CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT
In recent months the Company have stated that all male staff would
be obliged to operate check-outs if and when requested to do so.
Some workers have service in excess of 15 years.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
5. 1. The transfer of workers to check-out duties should not be
imposed without consultation with, and the agreement of the
workers concerned.
2. While new male staff are obliged to work on check-outs,
other male staff have worked in other sections for many years.
3. The Union is concerned about the implications for staff
who have never worked on check-outs if they are held
responsible for delays etc. of the check-outs they operate.
RECOMMENDATION:
6. The Court has considered the views expressed by the Union in
its oral and written submission.
The Court is disturbed at the absence of the employer. It is the
view of the Court that Management should recognise the rights and
interests of the employees and should with the workers and their
representatives foster good industrial relations. The parties
should have procedures which will enable the issues raised by
either party to be resolved in an equitable and peaceful manner.
In the issues put before the Court in this case the Court has had
to rely on the information put forward by the Union and in respect
of those issues recommends as follows:-
1. Transfer of Workers
The workers should be reinstated in the posts previously held
and the Company together with the Union and the
representatives should reach agreement on a procedure for the
transfer of staff.
2. Fork Lift Rate of Pay
The worker concerned should be paid an additional 4% on his
current rate of pay in respect of the responsibilities of his
job including his Fork Lift Driving skills.
3. Imposition of changes in conditions of employment
The Court recommends that changes in conditions of employment
of the staff should be the subject of negotiation with the
Union and its representatives and should not be imposed
unilaterally.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Tom McGrath
__________________
9th January, 1992 Deputy Chairman.
F.B./J.C.