FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : TESCO IRELAND (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY TRAYERS & COMPANY SOLICITORS) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Foley Employer Member: Ms Cryan Worker Member: Ms O'Donnell |
1. Appeal of Adjudication Officer Recommendation No R-135687-IR-13/JT
BACKGROUND:
2. This dispute concerns the Workers' claim that Managementoverlooked him for a position that he was entitled to when his previous position ceased to exist.This dispute was referred to anAdjudication Officerfor investigation and recommendation. On the 18th January, 2016 the Rights Commissioner issued the following Recommendation:-
- "I do not find the claims well founded and they fail."
On the 1st of March, 2016 the Employee appealed theAdjudication Officer's 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 15th April, 2016.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The vacant position should have been offered to the Worker based on seniority.
EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The vacant position was offered to another employee who engaged with an interview and selection process. The Worker refused to attend an interview.
2. The process of interviewing for the position is in line with the company union agreement.
DECISION:
The Court has carefully considered the written and oral submissions of the parties.
The matter before the Court is centred on the interpretation of a collective agreement between MANDATE Trade Union and Tesco Ireland. The Court has not had the benefit of the views of MANDATE Trade Union as to its interpretation of the agreement with Tesco Ireland.
The matter before the Court arises from job assignments which were made in late 2012. Since that time a person not involved in this claim has been assigned to the role of RSO in the Respondent’s Celbridge store. The claimant clarified to the Court that the remedy sought in this matter is the displacement of that person and the assignment of the claimant to the Celbridge store.
The Court is not in a position to address this matter in the manner sought particularly taking account of the fact that the Court has not had the benefit of the views of one of the parties whose collective agreement it is asked to interpret.
In all of the circumstances the Court recommends that the claim for assignment to the Celbridge store should fail.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Foley
20th April______________________
JKDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Jason Kennedy, Court Secretary.