Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD93466 Case Number: AD9390 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: WHELAN BOOT COMPANY LIMITED - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Appeal against Rights Commissioner's recommendation No.CW124/'93.
Recommendation:
The Court, having considered the submissions of the parties, does
not find grounds to amend the findings of the Rights Commissioner.
The Court, accordingly, upholds the Rights Commissioner's
Recommendation and rejects the appeal of the union.
Division: MrMcGrath Mr Keogh Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD93466 APPEAL DECISION NO. AD9093
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS 1946 to 1990
SECTION 13(9) INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES: WHELAN BOOT COMPANY LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS CONFEDERATION)
AND
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Appeal against Rights Commissioner's recommendation No.CW124/'93.
BACKGROUND:
2. 1. The Company is an Irish owned shoe manufacturer based
in Cootehill, employing approximately 54 workers. The
worker concerned joined the Company in 1981 and in 1983 was
assigned to the unit stores area. This assignment included
some cleaning duties. The Company has 2 stores areas.
2. In early 1992 it was decided to integrate the 2 stores
and to appoint a foreman with overall responsibility for the
area. The worker concerned would work mainly in the making
room. He was reluctant to make this change and it was
decided to leave the situation for the interim. In
September 1992 it was again decided that it would be more
efficient to integrate the two stores areas. The worker was
offered the responsibility for the new post but refused it
on the grounds that there was too much work for one
individual.
3. In January 1993 the worker was moved full time into the
making room and a foreman was given sole responsibility for
the 2 stores areas. The worker was unhappy with this
arrangement claiming that he was not given an opportunity to
accept or reject the new position, having expressed initial
reservations about it. The Union referred the matter to
Rights Commissioner service and a Rights Commissioner
investigation took place on 24th June 1993.
2. AD9093
The Rights Commissioner found that:
"the Company was perfectly entitled to reorganise it's
stores area to suit it's trading position. In effect the
position which the worker held was redundant, being merged
into a larger post. The worker was offered this larger post
and he declined it".
The Rights Commissioner issued the following recommendation
on 1st July, 1993.
"I recommend that the worker accepts that he has not been
treated unfairly nor has he any claim on the new position"
(The worker was named in this recommendation).
4. The Recommendation was appealed by the Union to the
Labour Court on 4th August, 1993, under Section 13(9) of the
Industrial Relations Act, 1990. The Labour Court heard the
appeal on 7th October, 1993.
UNION'S ARGUMENT'S
3. 1. The worker's duties in the unit stores area usually
involved six hours in stores and two hours cleaning. The
worker was happy with this situation. The introduction of
the combined stores and a new foreman position meant that
the worker was gradually moved to work on the making track.
2. The Company offered the position in the newly
integrated stores areas to the worker. He refused it on the
grounds that there was too much work for one individual.
This has proved to be true as the foreman in charge of the
stores area needs help from a number of other workers in
order to perform his duties.
3. The Company did not want to have the worker concerned
in charge of the stores area. It preferred to appoint the
foreman because he had previous experience of the work
involved. The Company did not think the worker suitable to
the position and did not want to train him.
3. AD9093
4. The workers old job is not redundant. It is the
foreman's job which is redundant. The Company should have
offered the new position to the worker again in January
1993. Instead it was given to the foreman who was always
the Company's first choice. The arrangement in the stores
area should be reviewed and the worker concerned appointed
to the position in charge of the stores area.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS
1. It was decided to reorganise the stores area because
the shoe manufacturing market was becoming increasingly
competitive and it was more efficient to have one employee
in charge of both stores. The Company was surprised at the
worker's reluctance to move to the making room. This would
have involved working normal factory hours which the worker
had previously indicated his interest in. The worker also
indicated that he would like to be considered for the
overall responsibility in the stores area.
2. The Company was facing falling orders and increasing
competition in the shoe industry. In September 1992, the
new position in the stores area was offered to the worker
who refused it. The Company was surprised at the refusal
and gave the worker time to consider the matter.
3. In January, 1993, the Company had no alternative but to
appoint the foreman to the position of stores area
supervisor The worker had given no indication that he was
interested in the position. It is normal management
practice to move employees for greater efficiency.
4. The Company is willing to accept the Rights
Commissioner's recommendation.
4. AD9093
DECISION
The Court, having considered the submissions of the parties, does
not find grounds to amend the findings of the Rights Commissioner.
The Court, accordingly, upholds the Rights Commissioner's
Recommendation and rejects the appeal of the union.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
5th November, 1993 Tom McGrath
C.O.N/A.L. ---------------------------
Deputy Chairman
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Ciaran O'Neill, Court Secretary.