Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD9460 Case Number: AD9426 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: POWER SUPERMARKETS LIMITED - and - A WORKER;SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Appeal against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation BC268/93.
Recommendation:
Having considered the submissions of the parties and the oral
evidence presented at the hearing, the Court accepts that having
an appropriate mix of skill and experience among the butchers in
its various outlets is a legitimate concern and requirement of the
Company. Within this context, the Court upholds the
Recommendation of the Rights Commissioner.
The Court so decides.
Division: Mr Heffernan Mr McHenry Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD9460 APPEAL DECISION NO. AD2694
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES:
POWER SUPERMARKETS LIMITED
AND
A WORKER
(REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION)
SUBJECT:
1. Appeal against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation BC268/93.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company employs approximately 110 butchers and
apprentices in the Dublin area. The worker concerned
commenced employment with the Company as a butcher in 1983.
The worker was transferred from the Company's Artane Branch
to Prussia Street on 15th July, 1993. The Union, on behalf
of the worker, appealed the transfer.
The Union claims that there is an Agreement whereby the
transfers of butchers is voluntary or, if not, the most
junior butcher is transferred. The Company maintains that it
is within its rights to transfer butchers as it sees fit.
The Union referred the dispute to the Rights Commissioner's
Service and a hearing took place on 17th November, 1993. A
Rights Commissioner's Recommendation issued as follows on
21st December, 1993.
"In the light of the above my Recommendation is that at
the first available opportunity which the Company has to
transfer the worker back to his original location in
Artane Castle this should be accomplished.
With regard to the issue as to whether an Agreement
concerning transfers does or does not exist I must
confess that I find myself here in an area of
imprecision. I would therefore suggest to both parties
that at an early date they sit down together to discuss
this broad issue with a view to coming to a workable and
sensible conclusion."
(The worker was named in the above recommendation)
The Recommendation was appealed by the Company to the Labour
Court on 31st January, 1994 under Section 13(9) of the
Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took
place on 25th March, 1994.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. In early July, 1993 the worker concerned was offered the
position of deputy Butcher Chargehand (Number 2) in the
Artane Branch. The worker turned down the position for
personal reasons. On 8th July, 1993 the worker was
informed that he was to be transferred to Prussia Street
on 15th July, 1993, a transfer the worker did not want.
When the worker indicated that he would now be willing
to take up the Number 2 position in Artane he was told
that the position had been filled. The worker was
informed that his job was "on the line" if he reported
to Artane instead of Prussia Street.
2. There is an ongoing understanding that the transfer of
butchers in the Dublin area is on a voluntary basis.
Where this is not possible, the butcher with the least
service is transferred. The worker concerned did not
wish to be transferred and he was the second longest
serving of the four butchers in Artane.
3. At the time of the transfer the worker's marriage was
imminent. He was in the process of buying a house and
his social activities centred around Artane. The move
to Prussia Street has greatly inconvenienced him.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
5. 1. There is no Agreement that the transfer of butchers in
the Dublin area is on a voluntary basis or on length of
service. The Company transfers butchers in accordance
with operational and customer requirements. This was
the situation with the worker concerned, because a
butcher of his experience was required in Prussia
Street.
2. The worker was offered and refused the Number 2 position
in Artane. He did not suffer any loss of earning or
worsening of his conditions as a result of his transfer
to Prussia Street.
DECISION:
Having considered the submissions of the parties and the oral
evidence presented at the hearing, the Court accepts that having
an appropriate mix of skill and experience among the butchers in
its various outlets is a legitimate concern and requirement of the
Company. Within this context, the Court upholds the
Recommendation of the Rights Commissioner.
The Court so decides.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Heffernan
13th April, 1994 ____________________________________
C.O'N/A.L. Chairman