INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004
SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
- AND -
(REPRESENTED BY MANDATE)
Chairman: Mr Duffy
Employer Member: Mr Grier
Worker Member: Mr O'Neill
1. Withdrawal of written warning and payment of 7.5 hours.
2. The dispute arises from a decision by the Company's management in Sarsfield Street Branch to change the worker's rota day off which would have been Christmas Eve. She was informed that she was rostered to work Christmas Eve. As the worker had made previous plans and was unable to arrange child care facilities for that day she informed her store manage that she would be unable to come in on Christmas Eve. She informed the manager that she would be available for the 27th December, 2003 but was turned down
On 6th January, 2004 the worker was called to the personnel office and was issued with a written warning for not contacting the store on Christmas Eve to inform them of her absence from work on that day. The Union are objecting to the written warning and seeking 7.5 hours pay for the shift that she should have worked on the 27th December, 2003. The Company refused.
The Union referred the dispute to the Rights Commissioner Service on the 18th March 2004. The Company objected to a Rights Commissioner investigation of the dispute. The Union then referred the claim to the Labour Court on the 2nd July, 2004 in accordance with Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969 and agreed to be bound by the Court's recommendation. The Company refused to attend the Labour Court hearing which took place on the 6th October, 2004.
3.1 The worker's rota day off fell on Christmas Eve, 2003. She had made plans accordingly.
2. She was unable to arrange child care facilities for that day, and informed her store manager of the situation. Consequently she could not work on Christmas Eve.
3. The Company did not give any consideration to the rights of their employees, they did not consult or have discussions with staff before changing the rota day off.
4. The worker felt that she was within her rights in refusing to work on Christmas Eve because it was her rota day off and that she should be given her normal shift on 27th December, 2003
The Court finds it regrettable that the Company declined the opportunity to attend at the hearing and assist the Court in its investigation of this dispute.
Based on the claimant's uncontradicted version of events it is clear that her rota day off was changed by management without consultation or agreement. Furthermore, the claimant was denied the opportunity to pursue her grievance at this change through the internal grievance procedure. This, in the Court's view constituted an infringement of the Code of Practice on Grievance and Disciplinary Procedures (S.I. No. 146 of 2000) made under Section 42 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990.
In the circumstances of this case the Court recommends that the Union 's claim be conceded. Accordingly the written warning with which the claimant was issued should be withdrawn and expunged from her record and that she be paid the equivalent of 7.5 hours pay in compensation for the Company's refusal to allow her to work on 27th December, 2003.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Jackie Byrne, Court Secretary.