INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2001
SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
JURY'S HOTEL & TOWERS
- AND -
Chairman: Mr Duffy
Employer Member: Mr Pierce
Worker Member: Mr. Somers
1. Alleged change of rosters and manning levels.
2. The worker was employed as a temporary telephonist for various periods between 1975 and 1987. In 1990, the claimant became a full time telephonist with the Company.
The worker claims that there was an agreement which provided for 6 telephonists on a six week rotating roster. The claimant states that the agreed rosters and manning levels were subsequently changed without any discussion or agreement. The worker has been absent from work through illness since the 21st of October, 2000.
The Company states that the changes to the roster and manning levels were warranted on the grounds of business demands. It claims that the changes were made following discussions with both the Union and at local level. The Company wrote to the claimant on the 9th of July, 2001, putting forward three options on which she could resume her duties. The worker has not responded to this offer.
The worker referred the dispute to the Labour Court under Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969, and agreed to be bound by the Court's Recommendation. The Court investigated the dispute on the 23rd of October, 2001.
3. 1. Management changed the rostering and manning levels without any consultation with those involved.
2. Complaints were made to both management and the union regarding manning levels but nothing was done about it.
3. The worker has suffered from stress and anxiety as a result of her working environment.
4. All the worker wants is to do her job in reasonable working conditions and not be asked to do the impossible.
4. 1. The changes to the roster and manning levels were warranted on the grounds of business demands, restructuring requirements and technological advances.
2. The proposed changes were agreed through a recognised industrial relations mechanism.
3. The claimant's roster has not changed in any way.
4. The Company conducted an exhaustive investigation into the worker's complaints. It found that the complaints could not be substantiated.
5. The claimant has consistently rebuffed advances from the Union to deal with her grievance.
Having considered the submissions of the parties, the Court believes that the three options proposed by the Hotel in its letter to the claimant dated the 9th of July, 2001, provided a reasonable basis on which the current impasse can be resolved.
The Court recommends that the claimant should now elect from amongst those options. If this does not result in a resolution of the claimant's grievance, the Court further recommends that she should utilise the internal Union/Company procedures in progressing any residual complaints.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
26th October, 2001______________________
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Larry Wisely, Court Secretary.