FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : DUNNES STORES - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Doherty Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. 'Retrospection'
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker has been employed with the Company since July, 2000 on the same contract of employment. In October 2004, the worker discovered that a colleague that she had trained in was on a higher scale of pay. When the Company was made aware of this they rectified the error and issued a new contract. The Union are now seeking full retrospection of the differential between the grade she was on and the grade of her colleagues over a three year period.
- The claim could not be resolved at local level. The Union referred the claim to the Labour Court on the 5th May, 2005 in accordance with Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969 on the grounds thatfailure of the Company to progress the worker through correct grade/scale in line with contract and colleagues.The Union agreed to be bound by the Court's recommendation. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 27th July, 2005. The Company did not attend the hearing nor lodged a submission with the Court.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3.1 The worker was disadvantaged over a three year period in relation to her junior colleague who performed the same duties as herself.
2. The Union appreciate the rate was resolved going forward, but the Company have not recognised the error retrospectively.
3. The Union contends that it is not unreasonable for the worker to seek full retrospection of the differential between the grade she was on and the grade of her counterpart. It is what she is owed under her original contract of employment and the newly issued contract.
RECOMMENDATION:
It is regrettable that the Company did not attend the hearing or otherwise communicate with the Court in relation to this dispute
It appears as if the details of the Union's claim was never formally served on the Company. In these circumstances the Court recommends that the Union should now inform the Company of the amount of money being claimed by the claimant and await its response.
If necessary the matter may be referred back to the Court.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
4th_August, 2005______________________
JBChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Jackie Byrne, Court Secretary.