FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : DUNNES STORES - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY MANDATE) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Hayes Employer Member: Ms Cryan Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Unfair treatment.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Worker is employed as a Sales Assistant by Dunnes Stores, Kieran Street, Kilkenny. She commenced employment in October 1987 and has been employed on a full time contract since 2000. The dispute relates to two issues regarding change of her rostered hours without agreement and her transfer to another department where she was not afforded assistance from other staff regarding the lifting of heavy loads.
The case comes before the Court pursuant to Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act 1990. The Court regrets the decision of Dunnes Stores not to attend the hearing. As a consequence the Court did not have the benefit of the Employer’s perspective on the issues before it. Nevertheless the Court is required, under the provisions of Section 20(1) of the Act, to investigate and recommend on all disputes referred to it under that Section. Accordingly the Court makes this Recommendation on the basis of the information supplied to it by way of both written and verbal submission made in the course of the hearing.
On the 12th May, 20011 the Union 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 22nd July, 2011.
The Union agreed to be bound by the Court’s Recommendation.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1.The Employer has unilaterally changed the roster of this Worker who has established a work pattern over a number of years.
2. The Employer has moved the Worker into a section where the lifting of heavy loads is a daily occurrence without the assistance of fellow co-workers.
3. The Union is requesting that the Worker is restored to her established working hours and given a transfer to an alternate working area immediately.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Union contended that the Company was discriminating against the Worker in three respects
First Issue
Thirteen workers in this branch of Dunnes Stores have similar contracts of employment. Twelve of this thirteen are required to work one late evening per week. This Worker is uniquely required to work two late evenings per week. The Union contends that there is no good reason for singling this Worker out from her peers and that to do so in this manner us unfair and inappropriate.
Recommendation
The Court recommends that Management determine accuracy of this contention and if it is true should discontinue it immediately and arrange to treat this Worker in the same manner as her peers in the store.
Second Issue
The Union contends that workers with long service in the store who have agreed work rosters with the Manager have those agreements honoured. It instanced a number of cases to demonstrate this point to the Court. Uniquely this Worker had agreed a work roster that had been in place for a number of years until it was unilaterally altered without reason in recent times. The Union contends that this is unfair and discriminatory.
Recommendation
The Court Recommends that the Company should investigate this contention and if it is true this Worker’s agreed roster pattern should be restored to her with immediate effect unless/until agreement is reached with the Worker on an alternative arrangement. The Worker should not be singled out for adverse or unfair treatment.
Third Issue
The Union noted that all Workers within the store are subject to transfer between departments and takes no issue with this. However when this Worker was transferred to the baking department after many years from the cosmetics department she was required to lift heavy loads of flour in order to keep the shelves stocked. Stores personnel assisted all of her predecessors in this department with the lifting involved in sourcing flour supplies in the stores. This Worker uniquely did not receive this assistance and was required to lift the heavy weights on unaided.
Recommendation
The Court recommends that the Company examine this matter and if the contention is correct it should take immediate steps to ensure that there is no recurrence of such treatment either of this or any other Worker in the future. In addition the Court recommends that Management advise this Worker of the outcome of its investigation into this matter and of the action taken to correct any shortcoming that is uncovered.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Brendan Hayes
5th September, 2011______________________
JFDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to John Foley, Court Secretary.