Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD92331 Case Number: AD92180 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: EDMUNDS WALKER (IRELAND) LIMITED - and - A WORKER |
Appeal by the worker against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation No. BC148/92 concerning the alleged unfair treatment of the worker by the Company.
Recommendation:
10. The Court expects that following this hearing both parties
will make every effort to improve their working relationship
immediately and for the future.
In view of the Company's statement contained in paragraph 9 of
their submission to the Court and their statement with regards to
the Rights Commissioners Recommendation the Court considers that
the Recommendation is not unfair in the circumstances and
accordingly upholds the Recommendation and rejects the appeal.
The Court so decides.
Division: Ms Owens Mr McHenry Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD92331 APPEAL DECISION NO AD18092
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 13(9) INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES: EDMUNDS WALKER (IRELAND) LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE SOCIETY OF IRISH MOTOR INDUSTRY)
AND
A WORKER
SUBJECT:
1. Appeal by the worker against Rights Commissioner's
Recommendation No. BC148/92 concerning the alleged unfair
treatment of the worker by the Company.
BACKGROUND:
2. Prior to August, 1991 the Company operated two separate
divisions at its Naas Road, Dublin headquarters i.e. Industrial
and Automotive. The duties of these divisions were amalgamated
and divided amongst the existing staff as a result of a
re-organisation following the acquisition of an Agency which
increased the Company's business.
3. The worker commenced employment with the Company in 1975 as a
clerical assistant. Her duties at that time consisted of typing,
telephonist and miscellaneous clerical duties. Over the years her
duties in the office evolved and she was engaged mainly in the
credit and debit end of the business. In addition the worker,
along with a colleague, collated and dispatched customer invoices
outside of normal duties for which they received #180 a month.
4. The worker was unhappy with her new duties following the
re-organisation as she considered that her position within the
Company was not as clearly defined as heretofore and that there
was no consultation concerning the changes. In March, 1992 the
area of debt collection was re-organised. The worker considered
that, in view of her work experience, these duties should have
been allocated to her instead of another worker. She approached
the Company regarding this but the position remained unchanged.
5. The Company approached the worker regarding the invoice
duties and proposed that #100 a month be paid to have the duties
done in-house rather than the practice of the workers preparing
the invoices in their own homes. The worker declined and she no
longer performs the invoicing duties.
6. The worker considered that she had been unfairly treated by
the Company as her duties had been altered without consultation,
her security of employment was threatened and her status was
reduced within the Company. She referred the matter to a Rights
Commissioner for investigation and recommendation. The Rights
Commissioner investigated the dispute on 6th May, 1992 and issued
the following findings and recommendation dated 15th May, 1992:-
"Having investigated the matter and having given full and
careful consideration to the points made by both parties I
have come to the following conclusions.
1. I am satisfied that the worker during the period of her
employment with Edmunds Walker has been a conscientious and
useful employee whose commitment to the Company is
unquestioned.
2. I note what it is that the Company has said concerning
reorganisation and the assurances it has given with regard to
the esteem with which she is held.
In the light of the above I recommend to the worker that she
continues to give her full co-operation to the new assignment
which is important to the Company. I also recommend that the
Company take on board the criticisms made concerning its
failure to consult adequately before changes in traditional
and conventional working are implemented. I further
recommend that as goodwill gesture Edmunds Walker (Ireland)
Ltd. should pay an ex gratia payment of #250 to the worker.
Should, in the future, any further difficulty emerge
concerning the role of the worker within the Company then the
parties may refer the matter back to me for further
consideration."
The worker was referred to by name in the Rights Commissioner's
Recommendation.
7. The worker appealed the Rights Commissioner's Recommendation
to the Labour Court under Section 13(9) of the Industrial
Relations Act, 1969. The Court heard the appeal on 25th June,
1992.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
8. 1. The Company has diminished the worker's status within
its operation. This is evidenced by the fact that the
Company refused to allocate the job of debt collecting when
it became available in March, 1992.
2. The worker is now performing work that is normally
carried out by junior and inexperienced staff.
3. The worker considers that she has been unfairly treated
by the Company since August, 1991 and particularly when the
job of debt collecting became available in March, 1992. The
worker consequently asks the Court to recommend that her job
be returned to her.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
9. 1. There has been no diminution of the worker's status,
seniority or salary, nor is there any change to her position
within the Company since August, 1991.
2. The re-organisation in the office area was as a result
of the Company acquiring a new Agency business (details
supplied to the Court).
3. The present duties assigned to the worker are valued
just as highly by the Company and she continues to be a
trusted, loyal, and valued member of staff.
4. In the event of further re-organisation or re-assignment
the Company will consult with the worker. However, the
Company must have the right to decide which duties should be
undertaken by workers.
DECISION:
10. The Court expects that following this hearing both parties
will make every effort to improve their working relationship
immediately and for the future.
In view of the Company's statement contained in paragraph 9 of
their submission to the Court and their statement with regards to
the Rights Commissioners Recommendation the Court considers that
the Recommendation is not unfair in the circumstances and
accordingly upholds the Recommendation and rejects the appeal.
The Court so decides.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
14th July, 1992 Evelyn Owens
M.D./M.H. ------------------------------
Deputy Chairman.