INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2001
SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
EASON & SON LIMITED
- AND -
(REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION)
Chairman: Ms Jenkinson
Employer Member: Mr Keogh
Worker Member: Mr O'Neill
1. Appeal against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation IR8099/02/Fl.
2. The worker was employed by the Company in September 1979 as a full-time sales assistant. In 1995 the worker became a receptionist and worked 22.5 hours per week over 3 days.
As a result of re-structuring the Company decided that there was no longer any need for a reception area and the worker was asked to transfer to the expanding Customer Services Department. The worker refused and sought a lump sum termination settlement. The Company refused.
The matter was referred to a Rights Commissioner for investigation and recommendation. The Rights Commissioner's recommendation is as follows:-
"I recommend that the claimant work the new system, and that it be reviewed after six months. I further recommend that she be paid €650 compensation because of disturbance".
On the 24th of May, 2002, the worker appealed the Rights Commissioner's recommendation to the Labour Court under Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. The Court investigated the complaint on the 8th of August, 2002.
3. 1. The job as now designed by the Company is not the worker's reception job.
2. The worker's job has been eliminated.
4. 1. The changes requested of the worker are minor.
2. The changes requested come within the terms of Clause 7 of the Programme for Prosperity and Fairness regarding 'the need for ongoing co-operation with change and for continued adaptation and flexibility'. This clause was specifically highlighted in an agreement between Eason and SIPTU in December 2001.
Having considered the written and oral submissions of the parties, the Court is of the view that in the circumstances described, no redundancy situation exists. The Court concurs with the findings of the Rights Commissioner and upholds his recommendation.
Accordingly, the employee's appeal fails.
The Court so decides.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
12th August, 2002______________________
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Helena McDermott, Court Secretary.