Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD93577 Case Number: AD9399 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: PENNEYS LTD - and - IRISH DISTRIBUTIVE AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRADE UNION |
Appeal by the Company against Rights Commissioner's recommendation No. B.C. 232/93.
Recommendation:
5. Having considered the submissions from the parties the Court
is of the view that the Rights Commissioner's recommendation is
reasonable in the circumstances and should be upheld. The Court
accordingly rejects the Company's appeal and so decides.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Keogh Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD93577 APPEAL DECISION NO. AD9993
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
SECTION 13(9)
PARTIES: PENNEYS LTD
(REPRESENTED BY THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS CONFEDERATION)
and
IRISH DISTRIBUTIVE AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRADE UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Appeal by the Company against Rights Commissioner's
recommendation No. B.C. 232/93.
BACKGROUND:
2. Due to extensive renovations being carried out to the
Company's store in the Galway Shopping Centre short-time working
was introduced from the 26th April 1993 to 29th May, 1993. The
hours of the 29 workers concerned were reduced as follows:-
(12) Full time staff - 3 day week every second week
(8) part-time staff - approximately 12 hours per
week.
(9) Saturday staff - 4 hours.
2. The Union claimed compensation for loss of earnings on behalf
of the workers concerned. Management rejected the claim. The
issue was referred to a Rights Commissioner for investigation
and recommendation. On the 24th September, 1993 the Rights
Commissioner issued his recommendation as follows:-
"In the light of the above I believe it is appropriate
that I make a Recommendation which acknowledges the
circumstances of both parties and that therefore a
compromise resolution is required. My recommendation
is that Penny's should make good 50% the net loss
incurred by the employees in question during the period
in question".
3. On the 1st October, 1993 the Company appealed the
recommendation to the Labour Court under Section 13(9) of the
Industrial Relations Act, 1969. The Court heard the appeal on
the 23rd November, 1993.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. During renovations the general level of trading declined
at the store and Management had to introduce short-time
working. The Company had previously introduced short-time
working at other locations without paying compensation
2. During the period of short-time working the workers
concerned received Social Welfare benefits. This was not
taken into account by the Rights Commissioner when he
recommended that the Company "make good 50% of the net
loss...."
3. The refurbishment programme was a significant investment
essential to maintain the viability of the store in the
current economic and competitive climate. Without this
investment job losses could have resulted.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
5. 1. During the refurbishment programme the earnings of the
workers concerned were drastically reduced (details supplied
to the Court).
2. Some of these workers are the only wage earners in their
families and their loss of earnings occurred at a time when
there was an increase in interest rates and mortgage
increases.
3. Penneys is a large company and can easily afford to
re-invest in the store without financially penalising the
workers concerned.
4. The workers fully co-operated with the Company during
refurbishment in difficult conditions and with an increased
work-load.
DECISION:
5. Having considered the submissions from the parties the Court
is of the view that the Rights Commissioner's recommendation is
reasonable in the circumstances and should be upheld. The Court
accordingly rejects the Company's appeal and so decides.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
3rd December, 1993 Evelyn Owens
T O'D/U.S. -------------
Deputy Chairperson