FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : WYETH NUTRITIONALS IRELAND LIMITED (REPRESENTED BY IBEC) - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY ENDA MC DAID) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Haugh Employer Member: Mr Marie Worker Member: Mr Shanahan |
1. Appeal of Adjudication Officer's Recommendation R-145476-IR-14.
BACKGROUND:
2. The case before the Court concerns the Worker's appeal ofAdjudication Officer's Recommendation R-145476-IR-14.The dispute relates specifically to theWorker's claim that she was treated in an inequitable manner following the Employer's alleged breach of a job-sharing agreement. The Worker holds a permanent job-sharing role within the Company. It is the Worker's contention that following the retirement of one of her colleagues, she was appointed to a permanent full-time position which she filled for a period of time. The Worker was subsequently informed by the Company that her application for the full-time position could not be accepted and she reverted to her original job-sharing role. The Worker on this basis asserts that the Company has acted in breach of the terms of an agreement by unilaterally returning her to her job-sharing role. The Employer rejects the Worker's claim and agreement could not be reached. The matter was referred to an Adjudication Officer for investigation and recommendation. On the 14th December 2015 the Adjudication Officer issued his Recommendation as follows:
"In respect of the Claimant wishing to revert to the full time role, any issue that involves other staff and a recommendation from me that would have an impact on them without their involvement in the process is not reasonable or sustainable or appropriate as the issue is a collective one and outside my jurisdiction. I am of the view however that the Claimant cannot displace another employee from a job sharing agreement but I do feel that the Claimant, based on all the issues she had to deal with, should be given consideration and first preference to occupy the role full time in the future should the opportunity arise".
On the 18th December 2015, the Worker appealed the Recommendation of the Adjudication Officer to the Labour Court in accordance with section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on 13th April, 2015.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Worker contends that she was treated unfairly by her Employer as a result of the Employer's unilateral decision to return her to her substantive job-sharing post having already held a full-time position for a duration of time.
2. The Worker further contends that the Employer has acted in breach of the terms of site-wide agreements and established custom and practice.
EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Employer asserts that at no stage was the Worker offered or appointed to a full-time position within the Company. Rather, the Worker was offered additional hours to cover absences, periods of leave and secondments when required.
2. The Employer has acted fully in line with Company/Union agreements which the Worker was a party to at that time.
DECISION:
This is the Worker’s appeal of a Right’s Commissioner’s recommendation – r-145476-ir-14.
Having heard the parties’ submissions, the Court declines jurisdiction in this matter as it is of the view that the dispute is collective in nature and is not properly before the Court pursuant to section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act 1969.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Alan Haugh
29th April 2016______________________
SCDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Sharon Cahill, Court Secretary.