FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : SUPERQUINN (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY MANDATE) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Appeal of Rights Commissioners Recommendation Ir21528/04/Gf.
BACKGROUND:
2. The case before the Court concerns an appeal by the Union of Right's Commissioner's Recommendation IR21528/04/GF. The dispute centres around an employee of Superquinn who has been employed by the Company since 1986. Initially the employee worked as a sales assistant and was promoted to the position of charge-hand in 1987. The worker has since returned to the role of sales assistant while maintaining his charge-hand rate of pay.
An agreement was concluded in 2001 between the Company and the Union concerning voluntary redundancies and the Union are claiming that it's member should have been entitled to apply on the basis of his back stores position within the Company.
The Company rejects the claim on the basis that the employee was employed as a sales person and did not quality for inclusion in the scheme. The matter was referred to a Rights Commissioner for investigation and recommendation. His findings and recommendation issued on the 11th April, 2005, as follows:
"I have given the matter careful consideration and I must come to the conclusion that the Company's position be upheld".
On the 22nd April, 2005, the Union appealed the Rights Commissioner's Recommendation in accordance with Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act,1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on the22nd of November 2005.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The employee was involved in backstore duties from 1998 to 2001. He then sustained an injury at work and has not yet resumed his employment. An entitlement exists to avail of the voluntary redundancy package as provided for in the Central Distribution Agreement of 2001.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The worker did not fulfil the agreed criteria for availing of the voluntary redundancy package as he had been employed as a sales assistant and not as a backstores person, nor had he been engaged in backstore duties for the required period of time.
2. The worker was not named on the list agreed, between the Company and the Union of all eligible employees, entitled to apply for voluntary redundancy.
DECISION:
Having considered the submissions of the parties the Court is satisifed that the conclusions reached by the Rights Commissioner are correct.
Accordingly, the Recommendation of the Rights Commissioner is affirmed and the appeal is disallowed.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
22nd December, 2005______________________
AH/MB.Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Andrew Heavey, Court Secretary.