FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : 4 HOME SUPERSTORES (DAIRYGOLD) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Grier Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Redundancy.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company announced a change of business model in late 2005 which included closing the Midleton Co-Operative Superstore and offering the Workers either alternative work in the new hardware store that replaced the supermarket or redundancy. The case is taken by two craft butchers who consider that the new jobs offered by the Company are not suitable for qualified craft / tradesmen under the Redundancy Act. The two butchers requested payment under the 2003 Severance Agreement however the Company insists that the alternative work offered does constitute suitable alternative employment.
The dispute could not be resolved at local level and was the subject of a Conciliation Conference under the auspices of the Labour Relations Commission. as agreement was not reached, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 26th April, 2007 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 23rd October, 2007.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. Stocking shelves and other general operative duties are demeaning to the two craft butchers involved.
2. As there is no suitable alternative work, an offer of payment under the 2003 Severance Agreement should be made.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The two Workers involved in the claim still enjoy the same terms and condition as previously pertained.
2. Full training in their new role on a regular basis is given to all staff that opted for redeployment.
3.There was no compulsory redundancies as a consequence of this development, some staff numbers were reduced over a period by natural attrition.
RECOMMENDATION:
The net issue before the Court is whether the alternative work made available to the Claimants constitutes suitable alternative employment as that term is generally understood.
The Claimants are craft workers and have worked as such throughout their period of employment with the Company. The work available is not related to their craft. In these circumstances and having regard to normal practice the work made available could not be reasonably regarded as suitable.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
19th November, 2007______________________
JF.Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to John Foley, Court Secretary.