FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : TESCO IRELAND - AND - SEVEN WORKERS (REPRESENTED BY MANDATE) DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Ms Doyle Worker Member: Mr Nash |
1. Appeal of Recommendation of a Rights Commissioner r-075573-ir-09/MMG
BACKGROUND:
2. The seven Employees work in the bakery, delicatessen and goods-inwards departments at the Tesco Store in Lisduggan Waterford. The issue concerns unproductive hours known as "downtime" and how the problem is resolved to the satisfaction of both parties. There are overarching national agreements in place which have addressed the problem for the majority of staff nationwide who are currently on flexible rosters and locations of work. However the seven Workers involved in this case are long-term permanent Employees, all of whom are on set contracts regarding their terms and conditions of employment.
The matter was referred to a Rights Commissioner for investigation and recommendation. On the 15th October, 2009, the Rights Commissioner issued his Recommendation as follows:
" I would ask management to sit down with the employees and their representatives and thoroughly examine the various alternatives that have been presented....It is further recommended that whilst these discussions take place that the current status quo remains in situ for all the employees involved".
On the 25th November, 2009 the Workers appealed the Rights Commissioners Recommendation to the Labour Court in accordance with Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 23rd June, 2010.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. While levels of "downtime" of up to 30% were identified by Management and the threat of a similar pay cut, all member agreed to work under protest and transfer to other areas if it were deemed to be necessary.
2. The Union proposed a range of options which include redundancy, buy-out, compensation for change and transfers, all of which are on a voluntary basis.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. There has to be changes in the work practice as no Company can afford to pay staff for doing nothing. The Company acknowledges that it is only by agreement that this dispute can be resolved.
2. The Company believes that the scope now exists for an agreement which will meet the reasonable requirements of both parties.
DECISION:
The Company clarified for the Court that as the seven named Claimants have a protected status under the 1999 Agreement it had no intention of changing their hours of work or hours of attendance and therefore they are not covered by the terms of the 2006 Agreement.
Therefore, the Court concurs with the Rights Commissioner’s Recommendation which recommended that management should sit down with the employees and their representatives and thoroughly examine the various alternatives that have been presented, with the exception of the redundancy option ( … “as the company may well be in a situation that there is no redundancy programme available”…)
The Court recommends that these discussions should take place as expeditiously as possible but no later than 14th August, 2010 and if the matter is not resolved by that date the parties may refer it back to the Court for a definitive Recommendation.
In the meantime the Court recommends that the Claimants should continue to work under protest.
The Court so decides.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
16th July, 2010______________________
JFDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to John Foley, Court Secretary.