FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : TOWN OF MONAGHAN CO-OP (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION) DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Unfair Treatment / Compensation
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company refused to grant the claimant the option of working part time. It is the Union's claim that this request for a reduction in hours was unreasonably refused. The claimant requested to go part time due to family responsibility. The claimant works a 5/6 day week system receiving a day off in lieu the following week for working Saturday. A leave of absence for 7 weeks was granted to the claimant in 2002, 6 weeks in 2003, 6 weeks in 2004 and 5 weeks 2005 in recognition of her circumstances. In October 2005, the claimant requested a reduction in working hours. This was granted for a period of six months and terms included that the claimant accepted demotion and a reduction in the hourly rate of pay. As circumstances did not change over this period, the claimant requested an extension of the agreed part time hours. This request was refused by the Company.
On the 5th March, 2007 the claimant referred the issue to the Labour Court, in accordance with Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 24th September, 2007.
The worker agreed to be bound by the Court's Recommendation.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1 The claimant has given over 42 years of service to the Company and has never been subject to any disciplinary procedures. The Company is aware of her circumstances and the Union believes it is grossly unfair that no effort was made to accommodate her request. The Company has never provided the claimant with a written response to her request or any reason for its decision to refuse it.
2 The Company's decision to refuse a continuation of the part time arrangement necessitated the termination of another employee who was covering the reduced hours. The Company had no complaint with the other worker's performance and it appeared to be a situation beneficial to all.
3 Though the employer has not threatened dismissal it is the Union's contention that the Company's refusal to facilitate the claimant's request for part time work is effectively constructing a situation where the worker will be forced out of her employment.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1 The Company seriously considered the claimant's request for an extension to the part time work arrangement. However, administration, recruitment, training and increased demand on time would increase the Company's costs. The Company has five specialist staff, including the worker to cover the staff roster. There is a shortage of skilled people in the area the Company is based.
2 The worker's full-time post is very unsuited to a long term part time employment especially in a Company with a 7 day working week. The quality of our products is paramount to the survival of the business.
3 The Company recognises that other people work part time at the Company. They are in office administration roles and one other employee in production has a reduced working week as it was feasible. The Company was not in a position to grant the worker's request. Both the Union and the worker were informed of this on many occasions.
RECOMMENDATION:
The claim before the Court concerns the worker's allegation that her employer unreasonably refused her reduction in her hours of work to accommodate her family responsibilities.
Having considered the submissions of both sides the Court notes that the Company has facilitated the worker on a number of occasions in the past with special arrangements on a continuous basis for another five years. The Company outlined the difficulties this would present for the running of the Laboratory particularly in a situation where due to competitive reasons in 2005/2006 the Company had to implement restructuring measures in the Laboratory, making significant reductions in testing levels and changes to manning levels, including one redundancy.
The Court was informed of that the claimant's family circumstances have changed since she made the initial application for an extension of the special arrangements. In all the circumstances of this case, the Court does not recommend in favour of the Union's claim for the extension of special arrangements, however, in the interest of family friendly responsibilities the Court recommends that the Company should consider allowing some flexibility to accommodate the claimant, where possible if or when circustances allow.
The Court so recommends
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
22nd October, 2007______________________
DNDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to David P Noonan, Court Secretary.