FULL RECOMMENDATION
SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : MUSGRAVE LIMITED TRADING AS MUSGRAVE RETAIL PARTNERS IRELAND (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION) DIVISION : Chairman: Ms O'Donnell Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Ms Tanham |
1. Appeal of Adjudication Officer Decision No. ADJ-00012969.
BACKGROUND:
2. This matter was referred to an Adjudication Officer for investigation and Recommendation. On the 4 June 2019 the Adjudication Officer issued the following Recommendation:-
- "Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Acts, 1969 requires that I make a recommendation in relation to the dispute.
That the claimant is put on the relief panel and that he is given the next available permanent position for drivers at his legacy rate of pay."
The Employer appealed the Adjudication Officer’s Recommendation to the Labour Court on the 24 June 2019 in accordance with Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969.
A Labour Court hearing took place on the 26 September 2019.
DECISION:
This is a claim by the Worker that he should be converted to a permanent driver on the legacy rates. It is the Worker’s claim that he had worked as a relief driver and been paid the legacy rates until 2013 when he had asked to be temporarily removed from the relief panel for personal reasons. His request was acceded to and he agreed to continue to help out with driving if needed. In early 2016 the Company invited expression of interests from drivers in the relief pool to apply for permanent positions. The Worker in his submission states that he was advised by the Transport Manager at that time that he had missed the cut-off deadline. In his own words, he took it on the chin at that time and did not pursue it any further. In late 2017 he became aware that the remaining four relief drivers on foot of representations from their Union were being converted to permanent drivers on the legacy rate. It is his claim that he too should be converted to a permanent driver on the legacy rate. The Worker confirmed to the Court that he had never formally advised management that he wanted to be re-instated into the relief driving pool. He did not dispute that he had only carried out a small number of driving hours in 2014 and 2015 and had not carried out any since 2015.
It is the Employer’s submission that the Worker was not part of the relief pool at the time the changes occurred, that the relief pool ceased to exist in 2018 and that there is no plan to re-introduce such a pool. The Employer drew the Court’s attention to Appendix 1 of their Submission which set out the driving hours for the 22 drivers in the relief pool. For the period 2014 to 2017 the Worker had a yearly average of four driving hours where the average for the other drivers was 1500. It is the Employer’s case that the conversion of relief drivers on the legacy rate to permanent drivers on the legacy rate was negotiated with the Union and no issue was ever raised in relation to the Worker being part of the eligible cohort.
The Court having read the parties submissions and listened carefully to the oral submissions on the day does not recommend concession of the Worker’s claim and therefore the claim fails.
The Decision of the Adjudication Officer is overturned accordingly.
The Court so decides.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Louise O'Donnell
TH______________________
11th October 2019Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Therese Hickey, Court Secretary.