FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : TESCO BALLINASLOE (REPRESENTED BY TESCO IRELAND) - AND - MANDATE DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Ms Cryan Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. 1.Compensation for members involved in moving to a new location. 2. Retention payment for one member in connection with her transfer from the canteen.
BACKGROUND:
2. The case before the Court concerns a dispute between the Employer and the Union on behalf of its members with regards to the relocation to a new store and furthermore, the transferring of one member to an alternative department within that store. In 2009, the Employer opened a new store in Ballinasloe, Co Galway with all staff transferring from the old store also located in Ballinasloe, to the new store. As a gesture of goodwill the Employer offered to give the staff social fund a once-off lump sum payment in the amount of €1600. The Union, on behalf of its members, rejected this offer and instead sought a payment of €1400 per employee as means of compensation for transferring to the new store. The Employer did not accept the Union's offer and agreement could not be reached.
On a seperate issue, the dispute also concerns the transferring of an employee from the old store's canteen to an alternative department within the new store. When the Employer moved to the new location it transferred its entire canteen operation to an external third party. The employee concerned was given the option to remain with the Employer or to transfer to the third party under the same terms and conditions of employment. The employee chose to remain with the Employer however is seeking a retention payment for her re-deployment to an alternative department within the new store. The Employer rejects this claim and agreement could not be reached between the parties.
The dispute could not be resolved at local level and was the subject of a Conciliation Conference under the auspices of the Labour Relations Commission. As agreement was not reached, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 22nd March, 2011 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 6th March, 2012.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3.1. The transferring to the new location has caused disturbances and inconveniences and required increased flexibility and co-operation from employees.
2. The Union is seeking compensation as a result of the issues associated with the relocation and contends that the Employer has previously paid compensation in situations such as this.
3.The Union is further seeking a once-off retention payment for the employee who transferred from the store's canteen to an alternative department within the new store, as recognition for the number of years of service she dedicated to the canteen.
EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:
4.1. The Employer contends that there was no impact on employees who transferred to the new store and rejects the Union's claim for compensation.
2. The Employer maintains that compensation is not paid to employees who transfer to new stores and that the payment offered to the staff social fund was a once-off gesture of goodwill.
3. The Employer asserts that they are contractually entitled to transfer employees within departments and do not offer retention payments to employees who are re-deployed to alternative departments within stores.
RECOMMENDATION:
There were two issues before the Court, the first concerned a claim by the Union for compensation for its members involved in moving to a new location when the company closed its old store and moved to a new store, in Ballinasloe. The Union sought a payment of €1,400 per person. In response to the claim the Company offered to pay a lump sum of €1,600 into the (ad hoc) social fund.
Having considered the positions of both sides the Court recommends that the Company should increase its offer to €2,000 to be paid as a once off lump sum into the (ad hoc) social fund.
The second issue concerned a claim on behalf of a worker who was responsible for the running of the canteen in the old store. On the opening of the new store the Company contracted out the canteen and the worker transferred to general Assistant duties. The Union sought a retention payment of €3000 for the worker concerned.
Having considered the positions of both sides the Court recommends in the particular circumstances of this case the Company should make a once-off lump sum payment to this worker. Therefore, the Court recommends that she should be paid the sum of €500 in settlement of this claim.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
21st March 2012______________________
SCDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Sharon Cahill, Court Secretary.