FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : CONNAUGHT GOLD CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Ms Doyle Worker Member: Mr Nash |
1. Compensation
BACKGROUND:
2. Connacht Gold has a total of 29 retail stores in the Connacht region. The Union's case is for compensation on behalf of a number of workers for what the Union claims was major changes/refurbishment in the Ballina Store. The redevelopment took place in late 2007/early 2008. The Company's view is that the claim is cost increasing and debarred under Towards 2016 (T16).
The dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commission and a conciliation conference took place. As the parties did not reach agreement the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 21st January, 2009, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relation Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on 18th June, 2009, in Sligo.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. Staff co-operated with the changes that were needed to ensure that the Store continued trading while the major refurbishment took place. Once the development was completed changes were required to the rostering arrangements of staff to cover seven days per week whereas in the past the Store only traded five, and occasionally six, days per week.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Union workers have acknowledged that the new Store is far superior to the old one and that conditions have greatly improved.
2. The changes involved are part of normal ongoing change and, as such, the claim is precluded by T16. Similar redevelopment took place in five other stores and no compensation took place. If the claim were conceded it would lead to knock-on claims.
RECOMMENDATION:
Having considered the submissions of the parties the Court does not believe that the type of degree of disruption upon which the claim is based warrants monetary compensation.
There was, however, some inconvenience caused to staff by the renovations. In order to dispose of the claim, and as a gesture of good will, the Court recommends that the Company offer and that the Union accept one additional day's annual leave in the current leave year and one further day's leave in the following leave year, on a once off basis, in full and final settlement of the claim.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
2nd July, 2009.______________________
CON.Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Ciaran O'Neill, Court Secretary.