FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 20(1); INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT; 1969 PARTIES : DUNNES STORES - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Keogh Worker Member: Mr. Somers |
1. Dispute regarding work practices/ job of an individual worker.
BACKGROUND:
2. The dispute concerns a worker who is employed by the Company as an accounts clerk. The Union claims that the Company has effectively made the worker redundant following a significant reorganisation of her duties. It states that the Company has refused to meet with the Union to discuss the worker's situation. The Union's claim is that the worker should be provided with her 'old job' as previously constituted, via the medium of a new I.T. system or full training or work of equivalent content, status and responsibility which is amenable to her or any other suitable option and direct discussions/ negotiations with the Union. On the 8th September, 2000, the Union referred a complaint to the Labour Coourt under Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. The Union agreed to be bound by the Court's recommendation. By letter dated 10th October, 2000 the Company declined to attend the Coutr hearing. However, it stated that the worker's duties changed due to the introduction of a new accounts system early in 1999. It did not involve any change in her position as accounts clerkor her conditions of employment. The Company stated that she refused to continue to carry out her duties and has been on certified sick leave since 3rd April, 2000. The Company is anxious that the worker, whom it values highly, should return to work and is in communication with her in that regard. It confirmed that the worker was not declared redundant.
The Court investigated the dispute on the 27th October, 2000.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Union has found it impossible to deal with Dunnes Stores on any of the issues relating to the worker's job description or any suitable alternative employment. The Company have refused to meet the Union, attend a conciliation conference or even join in a referral to the Labour Court.
2. The worker has given 26 loyal years of service to Dunnes Stores in her area of expertise.
3. She has been ignored to all intents and purposes in the planning and organisation of the new system in which she claims there is no place for her performing her normal duties of;
Bank Reconciliation
Letters of Credit
Payments
with her normal responsibility for same. What is apparently on offer to her is Bank Reconciliations with a llower level of responsibility with no Letters of Credit and no payments( since they were removed in September, 1999).
4. Given the unsatisfactory nature of the new organised structure vis-a-vis Bank Reconciliations( at a lower level of responsibility) neither of the other options were or are acceptable. The data input position is a junior one and a significant step back. Management has already been turned down by the worker previously and would involve an entirely new scenario for her.
5. While the worker clearly wants her 'old' position back or what she would regard as suitable alternative employment, it seems Management, certainly in the past, has made offers of other options including redundancy, and yet on this occasion have completely refused to consider the matter.
6. The Union sought to explore any or all of these options directly with Management and have had no other choice but to refer the matter to the Court in the hope that the process will persuade Management to deal with the worker's problem.
7. The worker remains on stress- related sick leave and the continuation of this unresolved problem is having a negative effect on her health.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
The Company's position is outlined in the background to this case via its letter to the Court of 10th October, 2000.
RECOMMENDATION:
A letter informed the Court that the company would not be attending the hearing. It is regrettable that the company decided not to attend but it did write to the Court outlining its position in relation to the worker's employment position.
The worker involved in this dispute has been employed by the company for 26 years; it obvious to the Court that during that time she has been regarded as a very valuable employee.
A situation has now arisen which has caused great anxiety to the worker concerning her future role in the company. The Court recommends that the company should do everything in its power to try and alleviate those fears in an effort to ensure a smooth return to work for the worker. To this end a meeting should be arranged with the worker and a representative/ companion of her choice to discuss the situation. The Court recommends that this meeting shoouuld be arranged without delay.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
10 November,2000______________________
tod/todCaroline Jenkinson
Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Tom O'Dea, Court Secretary.