FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : HEATONS - LETTERKENNY (REPRESENTED BY IBEC - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY MANDATE) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Doherty Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Dispute concerning liability for Saturday, Sunday, and Public Holiday working.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker commenced employment with the Company as a part-time General Sales Assistant in August 2005. Her Contract of Employment allowed the Company to roster her on a 5/7 day basis. Up to November, 2004 the worker was never rostered unless by agreement to work Saturdays, Sundays or those Public Holidays which fell on a Monday. She currently works a minimum of 20 hours per week. The Company now wishes to roster the worker to work on weekends and public holidays in accordance with the contracted conditions.
An offer made by the Company on 11th November, 2005 for the worker to work a maximum of 1 weekend in 5 either a Saturday or Sunday as required by the Company and a maximum of 2 Public Holidays per year was rejected by the Worker.
The Union referred the worker's claim to the Labour Court on the 7th February, 2005 in accordance with Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969 and agreed to be bound by the Court's recommendation. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 23rd November, 2005.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3.1 The worker has built up a considerable work/life balance around her long time and consistent working arrangements.
2. The Company has, for nine years during this long standing custom and practice managed or absorbed any impact of these arrangements and has never sought to change the worker's working arrangements nor complained to either the claimant or her work colleagues.
3. To the worker's knowledge none of her colleagues have complained to her or to management about the lack of fairness or otherwise regarding her long standing working arrangements.
4. The Company's new rostering arrangements unfortunately and unfairly ignore the claimant's custom and practice which has due place and regard in Industrial Relations.
5. The Company's new rostering arrangements has had a negative impact on the worker's work/life balance and has as a consequence the potential to de-motivate her.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4.1 The worker's contract of employment requires that she be available to work a 5 over 7 day roster in accordance with business needs.
2. The Company requires this flexibility to meet the changing needs of the business and to cope with the increased weekend trading within the retail sector.
3. Ongoing co-operation with change and continued adaption and flexibility is a fundamental principle of Sustaining Progress, which the Company have fully endorsed and implemented, and continue to do so.
4. In the interest of fairness, the Company have been reasonable in its approach and have made attempts to agree a compromise that best suits the worker.
5. The worker agrees that he has worked Saturday/Sunday and Public Holidays over the past three years prior to November, 2004. The worker maintains that this was by agreement with the previous Store Management. The Company are not aware of this agreement and no documents are on file detailing the agreement.
RECOMMENDATION:
In the Court's view the custom and practice relied upon by the Union could not offset or supplant the clear provision in the claimant's contract of employment. The Court further considers that the Company's offer of 11th November, 2005 is reasonable and should be accepted.
The Court recommends accordingly.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
5th December, 2005______________________
JBChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Jackie Byrne, Court Secretary.