FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : TESCO IRELAND - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY MANDATE) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Doherty Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Appeal Of Rights Commissioner's Recommendation r-071563-ir-08/EOS.
BACKGROUND:
2. The dispute concerns a claim by the Worker for a 7.5% post of responsibility payment for the role she performs as a Systems Checker . The Company claims, however, that this payment was agreed with the Union in 2000 on a red-circle basis - whereby the named list of Red Circle No. One System Checkers left the business, replacement General Assistants would not receive the 7.5% post of responsibility payment. . The matter was referred to a Rights Commissioner for investigation and recommendation. On the 25th May, 2009 the Rights Commissioner issued the following Recommendation:-
- “I recommend that the employer regularise assignments within the store to provide for compliance with their collective agreements with Mandate particularly with respect to the appropriate Section Manager assuming responsibility for Price Integrity and that on a once off basis the claimant be paid an exgratia payment of €3,000 in recognition of the specialist responsibility she has held, by default, since 2005”.
- “I recommend that the employer regularise assignments within the store to provide for compliance with their collective agreements with Mandate particularly with respect to the appropriate Section Manager assuming responsibility for Price Integrity and that on a once off basis the claimant be paid an exgratia payment of €3,000 in recognition of the specialist responsibility she has held, by default, since 2005”.
3. 1. The Worker was not one of the named Number One Systems Checkers who, as part of a 2000 Company-Union agreement, would hold a 7.5% payment on a red-circle basis.
2. When the previousNumber One Systems Checker took redundancy in 2005 the duties and responsibilities of the position fell to the Sales Based Ordering Manager.
3.Concession of this claim would expose the Company to many similar claims.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. This case revolves around what are the duties carried out by the Worker and whether the rate of pay is commensurate with same - and not whether or not a position was made redundant.
2. The Worker has performed the duties of a Systems Checker since July 2005; duties which are more onerous than those of a Sales Assistant.
3. Although local management has consistently acknowledged the full extent of the Worker's duties, the Company failed to address the issue.
DECISION:
It is noted that the Rights Commissioner made her recommendation on the basis of the unique circumstances in the Company's Balbriggan Store.
The Court accepts that the circumstances identified by the Rights Commissioner are unique and that they justify the payment of a once-offex-gratiaamount to the Claimant. Accordingly the Court upholds the recommendation of the Rights Commissioner.
However the Court wishes to make it clear that its decision in this case is made on the basis of an acceptance by all parties that neither the recommendation of the Rights Commissioner nor the Decision of the Court will be relied upon or quoted as a precedent in any other case or to support any other claim.
The appeal is disallowed and the decision of the Rights Commissioner is affirmed.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
6th October 2009______________________
JMcCChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Jonathan McCabe, Court Secretary.