Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD95421 Case Number: LCR14902 Section / Act: S20(1) Parties: HEATONS LIMITED (THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS CONFEDERATION) - and - MANDATE |
Dispute concerning the reduction in weekly hours of a worker.
Recommendation:
The Court having considered all of the views expressed by the
parties in their oral and written submissions finds that the
claimant was treated unfairly by the Company and recommends that
she be paid the sum of #200 in full and final settlement of this
dispute.
Further the Court recommends that the parties put in place as a
matter of urgency a Disciplinary/Grievance Procedure.
Division: Mr McGrath Mr McHenry Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD95421 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14902
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES:
HEATONS LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS CONFEDERATION)
AND
MANDATE
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning the reduction in weekly hours of a worker.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company is involved in the retail trade and operates a
number of clothing stores nationwide. Its head office and
warehouse is located in Tallaght. The worker concerned
commenced employment with the Company in August, 1994 on a
part-time basis at its outlet in the Square, Tallaght. In
November, 1994 she transferred to the warehouse and worked
full-time hours in the period November, 1994 to May, 1995.
She was responsible for computer matrixing in the warehouse -
recording the level of goods inwards/outwards. On the 8th
May, 1995 the worker was advised by management that her hours
were being reduced to 15 hours per week on the basis that the
quality of her work in the warehouse was poor. The worker
tendered her resignation to the Company with effect from 2nd
June, 1995. The Union claimed that the worker was treated
unfairly by the Company over its decision to reduce her
weekly working hours as part of the disciplinary process. It
referred the dispute to the Labour Court under Section 20(1)
of the Industrial Relations, Act, 1969 and agreed to be bound
by the Court's recommendation. The Court investigated the
dispute on the 14th September, 1995.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. At a meeting with the warehouse manageress on the 8th
May, in the presence of a fellow employee, the worker
concerned was advised that her hours were being reduced.
She protested the following day and was handed a letter
dated 9th May, which purported to retrospectively
justify the decision to reduce her hours. Previous to
this the supervisor had only held two brief meetings
with the worker about her work performance.
2. The Company did not adhere to correct disciplinary
procedures in its treatment of the worker. If the
Company was concerned about the worker's performance she
should have been informed of these concerns, of the
possibility of disciplinary action and of the right of
representation. Instead management called the worker to
an impromptu meeting in front of another staff member.
Mention was not made of what the Company considered to
be wrong with her work performance. She was not given
an opportunity to respond.
3. The incident highlights the need for an agreed
disciplinary procedure. The worker was denied natural
justice and is entitled to compensation.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The worker concerned held a very responsible key job in
the warehouse. The warehouse manageress had spoken to
the worker on a number of occasions about the poor
quality of her work. By May, 1995 the Company was
forced to take action. A disciplinary meeting was
arranged and her supervisor arranged for a colleague of
the claimant to be present. The worker was advised of
the Company's dissatisfaction with her work and the
level of improvement necessary to work without
supervision. The Company offered her further training
if necessary and also undertook to monitor her work
during this period.
2. There were only 3 staff in the warehouse. The
manageress decided to reduce the worker's hours on the
basis that she could not monitor the worker on a
full-time basis without her own work suffering. The
reduction was proposed as a temporary measure to allow
the worker show an improvement.
3. The Company accepts that the meeting of the 8th May,
should not have been conducted in the presence of a
colleague and apologised for this. The Company tried to
assist the worker. It used established disciplinary
procedures to deal with an employment problem in the
warehouse. The worker left the employment of her own
volition and was paid her statutory entitlements.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court having considered all of the views expressed by the
parties in their oral and written submissions finds that the
claimant was treated unfairly by the Company and recommends that
she be paid the sum of #200 in full and final settlement of this
dispute.
Further the Court recommends that the parties put in place as a
matter of urgency a Disciplinary/Grievance Procedure.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
3rd October, 1995 Tom McGrath
T.O'D./D.T. _______________
Deputy Chairman
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Tom O'Dea, Court Secretary.