Labour Court Database
__________________________________________________________________________________
File Number: CD93319
Case Number: LCR14180
Section / Act: S26(1)
Parties: CHADWICKS LIMITED - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
|
Subject:
Dispute concerning the introduction of job-sharing.
Recommendation:
Having considered all of the views expressed by the parties in
their oral and written submissions, the Court is not satisfied in
this instance that the matter which was considered by both parties
was that which related specifically to the circumstances of the
individual concerned.
It appears to the Court that the specific requirements of the
individual concerned were overshadowed by the wider implications
relating to job-sharing and excess manning-levels introduced by
both parties.
In these circumstances the Court recommends that, should the
individual concerned decide that she would wish to return to
employment in the Branch at which she was previously employed, she
should so advise the Company. The Company should arrange for her
to be given first refusal of any suitable opportunity which arises
including the possibility that such opportunity might be at least
initially on a part-time or job-sharing basis.
Division: MrMcGrath Mr McHenry Mr O'Murchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD93319 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14180
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES: CHADWICKS LIMITED
AND
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning the introduction of job-sharing.
BACKGROUND:
2. 1. The Company is a subsidiary of the Grafton Group plc.
and is a builders' providers and merchants, operating
seventeen branches nationwide. The Union is seeking the
introduction of a job-sharing arrangement to facilitate a
worker in the Sallynoggin branch. In late 1993, the worker, a
Receptionist/Telephonist/Cashier, requested the job-sharing
facility on the grounds that she has a young child and could
remain in the workforce only on a job-sharing basis. (She
subsequently resigned her full-time position at the end of
April, 1993). The Company is not prepared to comply with the
Union's request on the grounds that the introduction of a
job-sharing arrangement would be of no advantage to the
Company and that only full-time jobs are available in the
Sallynoggin branch.
The dispute was the subject of a conciliation conference on
the 10th of March, 1993. Agreement was not reached. The
matter was referred to the Labour Court on the 24th of May,
1993 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial
Relations Act, 1990. The Court investigated the dispute on
the 27th of July, 1993 (the earliest date convenient to both
parties).
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. It is unreasonable of the Company to refuse to implement
job-sharing in the Sallynoggin branch in view of the fact
that job-sharing has worked successfully in both Sandyford
and Bray branches.
2. Due regard should be had to the spirit and letter of the
1977 Employment Equality Act and to the E.C. 3rd Action
Programme on Equality. An objective of the E.C. 3rd Action
Programme is 'to reduce barriers to women's access to and
participation in employment, particularly through measures
aiming to reconcile working-life and family
responsibilities'.
3. There are no practical reasons why the position in
question could not be shared. There would be a cost saving
to the Company and a fresher approach to the work by two
employees working alternate days (details supplied to the
Court).
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. Concession of the claim would result in operational
disruption and would be contrary to the Company's and
customers' best interests.
2. Job-sharing, by its nature, involves various additional
costs (details supplied to the Court).
3. Each of the Company's branches is a small decentralised
unit with functional groups organised to carry out all
relevant tasks. A job-sharing arrangement would inhibit
management's ability to respond directly to the volatile
nature of business.
4. It would be more appropriate for the issue of
job-sharing to be discussed at national level within the
industry in general, taking cognisance of the terms of the
Programme for Economic and Social Progress.
RECOMMENDATION:
Having considered all of the views expressed by the parties in
their oral and written submissions, the Court is not satisfied in
this instance that the matter which was considered by both parties
was that which related specifically to the circumstances of the
individual concerned.
It appears to the Court that the specific requirements of the
individual concerned were overshadowed by the wider implications
relating to job-sharing and excess manning-levels introduced by
both parties.
In these circumstances the Court recommends that, should the
individual concerned decide that she would wish to return to
employment in the Branch at which she was previously employed, she
should so advise the Company. The Company should arrange for her
to be given first refusal of any suitable opportunity which arises
including the possibility that such opportunity might be at least
initially on a part-time or job-sharing basis.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
31st August, 1993 Tom McGrath
M.K./M.H. ____________________________________
Deputy Chairman
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Michael Keegan, Court Secretary.