FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2001 SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : TESCO IRELAND, PORTLAOISE (REPRESENTED BY TESCO IRELAND HEAD OFFICE) - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION) DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Doherty Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Appeal against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation IR13815/03/LM.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker concerned commenced employment with the Company in January, 1986. In 1997, the Company states that she successfully applied for the position of Sales Assistant in the non-food department of the store which was a stand alone unit. The Union argues that the position she applied for was Drapery Assistant. In December, 2002, the non-food department moved back into the main store. The Union states that after the move the worker concerned was not allowed to work in the drapery section. The Company states that her role has remained unchanged.
- The issue was referred to a Rights Commissioner for investigation and recommendation. In her recommendation which issued on the 24th of September, 2003, she concluded that she was satisfied that the claimant's job title is that of Sales Assistant and that her working conditions remain unchanged since moving back to the main store and she recommended that the Company's position be upheld and the claim fails.
The Union appealed the recommendation to the Labour Court on the 23rd of October, 2003, in accordance with Section 13(9), of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 9th of December, 2003.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3 1. The worker concerned was offered and accepted the position of Drapery Assistant.
2. Before taking up the position of Drapery Assistant, the worker concerned attended a two week training course in a store where drapery was already a part of trading.
3. The worker concerned was unfairly treated by the Company. She was last to leave the stand alone unit and was asked to tidy up and clean.
4. The worker concerned should be reinstated as a Drapery Assistant.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The worker concerned successfully applied for the position of Sales Assistant.
2. The worker concerned has been and continues to be employed as a Sales Assistant in the non-food department.
3. The present duties of the worker concerned are identical to the duties she carried out when the non-food department was located in the stand alone unit.
DECISION:
Having considered the oral and written submissions of the parties, the Court concurs with the conclusions and recommendation of the Right's Commissioner and accordingly, upholds her recommendation. The appeal fails.
The Court so decides.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
6th January, 2004______________________
GB/MB.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Gerardine Buckley, Court Secretary.