Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD93532 Case Number: AD9397 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: GUINEY AND COMPANY LIMITED - and - IRISH DISTRIBUTIVE AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRADE UNION |
Appeal by the Union against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation No. CW106/93 concerning proposed reduction in pay of a worker.
Recommendation:
Having regard to the fact that a considerable period of time has
passed since the closure of the department and that the Company
has continued to pay the claimant the buyer's rate pending
conclusion of procedures, the Court considers that the Rights
Commissioner's Recommendation is appropriate and should stand.
The Court so decides.
Division: Mr Heffernan Mr McHenry Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD93532 APPEAL DECISION AD9793
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES: GUINEY AND COMPANY LIMITED
AND
IRISH DISTRIBUTIVE AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRADE UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Appeal by the Union against Rights Commissioner's
Recommendation No. CW106/93 concerning proposed reduction in pay
of a worker.
BACKGROUND:
2. 1. The worker concerned commenced employment with the
Company in 1976, as a buyer in the glove/accessories
department of the Company's Tablot Street store. In October,
1992, the Company informed the worker that the
glove/accessories department would close in December, 1992.
In December, 1992, the worker was regraded to the position of
sales assistant with a drop in pay of approximately #37.00
per week.
In the period November, 1992 to March, 1993, local level
discussions took place regarding the closure of the
department. It was agreed to refer the issue in relation to
the reduction in pay to a Rights Commissioner for
investigation and recommendation. On 16th August, 1993, the
Rights Commissioner recommended as follows:-
"I recommend that the worker accepts a transfer to the
Sales Assistant rate of pay and conditions of service
with effect from week ending 21st August, 1993, and
that the Company pays to her a lump sum of #3,000
compensation in settlement of this dispute".
The worker was named in the recommendation.
The Rights Commissioner's Recommendation was appealed by the
Union to the Labour Court on 15th September, 1993. The
Labour Court heard the appeal on 29th October, 1993.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
5. 1. On 15th September, 1992, the Union submitted a claim
under the Anti-Discrimination (Pay) Act, 1974, on behalf of
the worker concerned and three other female buyers for equal
pay with male buyers employed by the Company. On 17th
October, 1992, 28 days later, the worker concerned was
informed that she was being demoted. The Company denied the
Union's claim of discrimination against the worker.
2. A Union proposal that an independent assessor be
appointed to assess the performance of the glove/assessories
department in relation to other departments in the store was
rejected by the Company.
3. Since the Rights Commissioner issued his recommendation,
several items previously bought by the worker concerned have
been re-introduced in other departments.
4. The worker has reluctantly accepted that the
glove/assessories department is closed permanently. She
should be compensated for her loss of earnings, her loss of
pension rights and the loss of her status.
5. Compensation of 3 times the annual loss is not unusual
in the circumstances.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The glove/assessories department has suffered losses and
the decision to close was an inevitable consequence of this.
2. The Company has acted reasonably at all times in this
matter, by offering an alternative to redundancy and by not
imposing a change in terms and conditions while the matter
was being processed through procedures.
3. The well-established practice in these circumstances is
to agree a once-off compensation payment for the transfer and
the Rights Commissioner's recommendation fully meets this.
4. The Company cannot afford to retain the worker concerned
on a higher rate of pay on an on-going basis. In general the
retail trade has been experiencing extreme difficult trading
conditions for some time and Guineys is no exception to this.
5. It would not be practicable to have staff working side
by side doing the same or similar work but on different terms
and conditions of employment.
6. The Rights Commissioner's investigation was
comprehensive and provided both parties with every
opportunity to state their case.
DECISION:
Having regard to the fact that a considerable period of time has
passed since the closure of the department and that the Company
has continued to pay the claimant the buyer's rate pending
conclusion of procedures, the Court considers that the Rights
Commissioner's Recommendation is appropriate and should stand.
The Court so decides.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
24th November, 1993 Kevin Heffernan
F.B./A.L. _______________
Chairman