FULL RECOMMENDATION
SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : TESCO IRELAND LIMITED (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY MANDATE) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Hayes Employer Member: Ms Doyle Worker Member: Ms O'Donnell |
1. An appeal of an Adjudication Officer's Decision No: ADJ-00000785.
BACKGROUND:
2. This case concerns the application of the terms of a collective agreement.
The Union submits that the Claimant, in the relevant reference period, consistently worked 39 hours per week for 16 weeks which entitles her to increase her weekly 35 hours contract to 39 hours per week in accordance with the terms of the 2006 Company/Union Collective Agreement..
- The Employer submits that it acted in full compliance with the 2006 Collective Agreement and provided the Claimant with an increased hour’s contract in accordance with the terms of the Agreement.
- This matter was referred to an Adjudication Officer for investigation and Recommendation. On the 24th November 2016 the Adjudication Officer issued the following Recommendation:-
- Pursuant to the Industrial Relations Acts, I recommend that the complainant be provided with a 39-hour contract, back-dated to the 5thFebruary 2015 and that the respondent pay to the complainant €500 as redress for the manner in which it dealt with her grievance.
The employer appealed against the Adjudication Officer’s Recommendation to the Labour Court on the 21 December 2016 in accordance with Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969.
A Labour Court hearing took place on the 15 March 2017.
UNION ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Company/Union agreement is clear with regard to the criteria that needs to be satisfied for an employee to qualify for a contract for increased hours. The Claimant clearly satisfied those requirements and is entitled to a 39 hour contract.
2. The Company has failed to provide any evidence in support of its decision to deny the Claimant a 39 hour contract.
3. The Company is seeking to introduce an additional hours contract that is not provided for in the Collective Agreement.
EMPLOYER’S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company accepts the Claimant worked beyond her contracted hours for in excess of 16 weeks in the relevant period.
2. In recognition of that pattern of work the Company offered the Claimant a 35+ hours contract in line with the terms of the Collective Agreement.
3. The Company submits that the Claimant worked in excess of her 35 hour contract during busy trading periods that have now passed. Accordingly the store in which the Claimant works does not have the capacity to provide the Claimant with a 39 hour contract. In that context the Company's offer is fair and reasonable and should be supported by the Court.
DECISION:
The Court has given careful consideration to the submissions of both parties to this dispute. In that context the Court finds
In accordance with the terms of the 2006 Agreement the Court finds that the Claim is well founded and decides accordingly.
The Court so decides.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Brendan Hayes
CR______________________
8th May, 2017Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Ciaran Roche, Court Secretary.