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 TRADE UNION) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Foley Employer Member: Ms Connolly Worker Member: Ms Tanham |
1. Appeal Of Adjudication Officer Decision No: ADJ-00000002
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company appealed the Adjudication Officer's Recommendation to the Labour Court on the 6th September 2016 in accordance with Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969.
A Labour Court hearing took place on the 25th of April 2017.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
The Union argued that the Worker was the designated individual for covering her department's Chargehand position when required.For this role the Worker received a 7.5% pay differential. The Company/Union 2006 Management Structures Agreement provided for the removal of this pay differential. The Union stated that, while the pay differential was discontinued for the Worker, it continued to be paid to other workers in the store. It is the Union's contention that the Company's treatment of the worker is unfair and unjust and has had a negative monetary impact on the Worker.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
The Company's position is that the role of Chargehand no longer exists following a company-wide restructuring in 2010. The Company also argued that the Worker carries out duties consistent with those outlined in her job description and is remunerated accordingly.
DECISION:
The Court has given very careful consideration to the written and oral submissions of the parties.
It is common case that three colleagues of the Claimant were, from 2009, in receipt of a payment because the department in which they were working did not have a section manager. It appears that the payment continued after the appointment of a section manager to the relevant department in the case of two individuals and until his departure from the company in the case of another individual. That latter individual continued to work in a department without a section manager until the conclusion of his employment. The company have submitted that the continuation of the payment to two individuals after the appointment of a section manager was an error and the Trade Union has made no submission asserting that its’ continuation beyond that point was for any other reason.
The Claimant contends that she should receive the same payment as the three individuals and also contends that she is carrying out duties beyond her grade in the cash office and which are similar to the duties carried out by the three individuals at the point they were afforded the payment concerned in 2009.
The Court cannot, as part of this matter, address a claim that the claimant is working beyond her grade in the cash office. Were the Court to accept such a contention the implication would be an acceptance that the section manager must not be discharging all of his or her duties. Any such claim should be dealt with separately and in its own right.
The Court therefore has considered the matter outside of any consideration of contentions as regards working beyond grade.
The Court is satisfied that the Claimant is being remunerated in accordance with the 2006 and 2010 collective agreements between the parties and can find no basis for concession of the Trade Union side claim.
The decision of the Adjudication Officer is set aside and the appeal succeeds.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Foley
JD______________________
2 May 2017Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to John Deegan, Court Secretary.