FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : TESCO IRELAND - AND - DEAN MORAN (REPRESENTED BY MANDATE) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Foley Employer Member: Mr Marie Worker Member: Mr Shanahan |
1. Appeal of Rights Commissioner's Recommendation No r-156664-ir-15/JW
BACKGROUND:
2. This case concerns a claim for compensation following the reduction of the Claimant’s salary.
- The Union said that the Claimant had his salary reduced as a result of the Claimant’s role as a Section Manager being discontinued following a restructuring process in 2010.
The Employer said that there was no basis for the claim. The Employer believes that it is entitled from time to time to restructure its management and management processes as fits the needs of the business.
- This matter was referred to a Rights Commissioner for investigation and Recommendation. On the 25thJanuary 2016the Rights Commissioner issued the following Recommendation:-
"Taking into account all the circumstances of this case I recommend that the complaint is not well founded and therefore fails.”
The Union on behalf of the Claimant appealed the Rights Commissioner’s Recommendation to the Labour Court on the 16thFebruary 2016 in accordance with Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969.
A Labour Court hearing took place on the 24thMarch 2016.
UNION’S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Claimant made it clear to the Store Manager in 2010 that he was not happy about the proposed changes as he already had a contract of employment for the job of Section Manager. If he were to take another contract he would have to be compensated for the loss of his existing one.
2. The Claimant made it clear to the Store Manager after an interview, that he was not prepared to take on the job of Line Manager with all the extra work and responsibility it entailed for the same money that he was currently being paid.
3. The Claimant's colleague, and the only other person in the store who was demoted to the position of team leader and was at the same loss of earnings as the Claimant was awarded compensation for loss of earnings by a Rights Commissioner.
EMPLOYER’S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Claimant engaged in the process and was successful in his interview for the role of Line Manager. He did not take up this role due to the extra responsibility involved with the role and because no additional money was being offered.
2. The Claimant chose to move to the role of team leader of his own volition and worked in that role for four years before initiating a grievance looking for compensation.
3. The Claimant’s case is fundamentally and factually different to the case which was the subject of a Rights Commissioner’s Recommendation and referred to by the Claimant.
DECISION:
This is an appeal of a Rights Commissioner Recommendation made under the Industrial Relations Acts, 1946 to 2015. The claimant had sought compensation for loss of earnings arising from his appointment as a Team Leader as a result of a re-structuring of the company management structures. The Rights Commissioner recommended that the claim was not well founded and that it should fail.
The Court has considered in detail the written and oral submissions of the parties.
The claimant in this case was a Section Manager with the respondent company until 2010 at which point, as a result of a re-structuring by the company, he was appointed as a Team Leader with a reduced rate of pay applying to that position. The claimant attended for interview in 2010 for a position as Line Manager and was successful at that interview. The claimant however indicated to the respondent that he did not wish to be appointed as a Line Manager unless his contract as a Team Leader was ‘bought out’. The respondent offered the claimant a position as team leader which he took up albeit that he contends that he did so effectively under protest.
The claimant raised a grievance with the respondent as regards his loss of earnings in October 2014. That grievance was pursued through the internal procedures of the respondent but was not resolved to the satisfaction of the claimant.
The claimant contends that he should be compensated for the loss of earnings he has suffered and stated to the Court that a colleague in a similar position was so compensated as a result of a Recommendation of a Rights Commissioner.
The Respondent contended to the Court that the claimant had participated in the process for appointment as a Line Manager at the time of the restructuring in 2010. The Respondent states that the claimant refused an offer of appointment to a position of Line Manager which would have protected his earnings and instead, and of his own volition, took up the role of Team Leader. The respondent contended that any comparison with a named colleague of the claimant was not appropriate given the differing circumstances involved in both cases.
The attention of the Court was drawn by both parties to a Rights Commissioner decision in a claim by a colleague of the claimant and both parties sought to assert a view as to the relevance or otherwise of that matter to the within case. The Court however, at its hearing, was presented with contradictory assertions as regards the facts of the case of the claimant’s colleague and which was resolved by decision of a Rights Commissioner.
The Court has therefore considered this matter on the basis of its own facts and on the detail presented in submissions and at the hearing. The Court is of the view that the circumstances of the case are such that compensation is warranted. The Court however is of the view that any such compensation should be measured so as to take account of the role of both parties in arriving at the point where the claimant was appointed as a Team Leader.
In consideration therefore of all of the circumstances, the Court believes that compensation should be paid to the claimant and measures that compensation at €6,500.
The Court so Recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Foley
4 April 2016______________________
MNDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Michael Neville, Court Secretary.