Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD95616 Case Number: LCR15098 Section / Act: S20(1) Parties: IRC CONTRACTS - and - A WORKER;SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Alleged refusal by the Company to negotiate changes in work practices.
Recommendation:
The Court has fully considered the submissions made by the
claimant in this case. The Company chose not to attend the
hearing or to make any submissions.
The Court finds that the Company acted in a most unreasonable
manner in dealing with the claimant. It is the view of the Court
that the manner in which she was treated was contrary to good
industrial relations practice and what would be expected of any
reasonable employer.
The Court recommends that the employer redress this situation by
reinstating the claimant to her former position and compensating
her for the losses incurred.
Division: Mr McGrath Mr McHenry Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD95616 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR15098
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES:
IRC CONTRACTS
AND
A WORKER
(REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION)
SUBJECT:
1. Alleged refusal by the Company to negotiate changes in work
practices.
BACKGROUND:
2. In June, 1992, the Company agreed to handle all the
merchandising needs of Waterford Foods Ireland Limited in the
Limerick area. At the time the worker, who had been employed
with the Company for approximately 6 years, held the grade of
supervisor. She was informed that she was to be demoted to
the grade of sales co-ordinator. Her rate of pay was to be
reduced from £5.00 per per hour to £4.15 per hour from March,
1993. Store visits were also to be reduced to £4.15 per
visit. The Union claims that no negotiations took place
between the parties, despite requests from the worker.
The Union referred the dispute to the Labour Court under
Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A
Labour Court hearing took place on 14th February, 1996, in
Limerick. The Company did not attend the hearing.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Company's decision was unilateral. Because of the
increased area to be covered the worker did not have
enough travel time. The worker had to cover 4 stores in
3.5 hours. Some visits could take 2-3 hours each but the
worker was paid only £4.15 per visit, not per hour.
2. The worker was expected to train relief staff but was
given no extra time to do so. The Company was unwilling
to discuss the dispute in a reasonable way with the
Union. It refused to attend a Rights Commissioner's
hearing or a conciliation conference.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has fully considered the submissions made by the
claimant in this case. The Company chose not to attend the
hearing or to make any submissions.
The Court finds that the Company acted in a most unreasonable
manner in dealing with the claimant. It is the view of the Court
that the manner in which she was treated was contrary to good
industrial relations practice and what would be expected of any
reasonable employer.
The Court recommends that the employer redress this situation by
reinstating the claimant to her former position and compensating
her for the losses incurred.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
12 March, 1996 Tom McGrath
C.O'N./D.T. _______________
Deputy Chairman
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Ciaran O'Neill, Court Secretary.