Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD86642 Case Number: LCR10857 Section / Act: S67 Parties: TELECOM EIREANN - and - EAMONN J. BYRNE |
Withdrawal of an offer of redeployment to a worker.
Recommendation:
7. The Court is satisfied that the appointment of the worker to
the post in question was a bona fide mistake on the part of the
Bord and whilst the worker did not incur any loss as a result of
the mistake he and his family suffered genuine upset and
disappointment as a result and for this reason the Court recommends
that the worker be paid a sum of #500 in compensation.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
10th December, 1986 ---------------
D.H./U.S. Deputy Chairman
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr Collins Mr Devine
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD 86642 THE LABOUR COURT LCR10857
Sect 20(1) INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR10857
Parties: TELECOM EIREANN
and
A WORKER
Subject:
1. Withdrawal of an offer of redeployment to a worker.
Background:
2. The claimant is employed by the Company as a night telephonist
in the International Telephone Exchange which is part of the
Central Telephone Exchange. There are 476 night telephonists
employed in the Central Telephone Exchange.
3. It was agreed at the Joint Conciliation Council of the
Transitional Scheme of Conciliation and Arbitration of the Irish
Telecommunications Board in November, 1985, to set up four new
fault report centres in the Dublin area which were to be staffed by
nine redeployed telephonists (six day and three night) at each
centre. Telephonists who were successful in their application for
the posts were to be regraded as Technician Class II. The posts
were advertised in the Central Exchange and staff were selected on
the basis of seniority and suitability as agreed at the Joint
Conciliation Council. Seniority was based on the date of entry of
an employee into a grade. The posts were advertised by way of an
office notice on the 12th February, 1986. Four hundred
applications were received of which 54 were from night
telephonists.
4. The claimant applied for one of the posts at the Belcamp
Exchange on the 27th February, 1986. In processing his application
a mistake was made in taking his date of entry from his personnel
records and he was credited as having entered the grade of night
telephonist on the 13th April, 1971, instead of the 13th April,
1981. This error placed the claimant fourth from the top of the
list of suitable applicants when in fact by right he should have
been fourth from bottom. On the 21st April, 1986, he was offered a
position as Technician Class II at the Belcamp Exchange. He signed
and returned his acceptance form for the position on the 25th
April. However, following a query from one of the staff unions the
error was discovered and on the 21st May the Company wrote to him,
setting out the facts of the case and apologising for any
inconvenience caused by the withdrawal of the offer of
re-deployment. The claimant was dissatisfied with this and on the
28th July, he referred the matter to the Labour Court under Section
20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Court hearing took
place on the 25th September, 1986, the earliest date suitable to
the parties.
Worker's arguments:
5. (a) A written agreement exists between the worker and the
Company. The Company's offer, and his subsequent
acceptance of the new post, created obligations for
both parties. Either party wishing to break or vary
this agreement, for whatever reasons, was, in the first
place, obliged to notify the other and then, in an open
and fair fashion, establish objectively its right to
change the agreement. The Company failed to do this.
(b) The claimant not only lost his post but also his right
to be consulted, to know the case against him and to
make his own case in advance of any decision being
taken.
(c) It would now seem that any contractual agreement
between the claimant and the Company can be reneged on
by Management in an unjust fashion. The Company is
bound by the requirements of natural justice.
Company's arguments:
6. (i) The Company offered the post to the claimant on the
mistaken belief that he was qualified for the post on
the basis of both seniority and suitability. When it
was discovered that he was not qualified on the basis
of seniority, the Company had no option but to withdraw
its offer as he clearly had not met the criteria agreed
with the unions regarding selection of candidates for
re-deployment.
(ii) The Company sincerely regrets any inconvenience caused
to the worker concerned but must point out that he has
sustained no actual loss as a result of the withdrawal
of the offer of redeployment. In fact, his
remuneration as a Technician Class II would be less
than that for a night telephonist (details supplied to
the Court).
(iii) The Company has acted in good faith throughout this
unfortunate incident and has apologised to the worker
for any inconvenience which might have been caused to
him.
RECOMMENDATION:
7. The Court is satisfied that the appointment of the worker to
the post in question was a bona fide mistake on the part of the
Bord and whilst the worker did not incur any loss as a result of
the mistake he and his family suffered genuine upset and
disappointment as a result and for this reason the Court recommends
that the worker be paid a sum of #500 in compensation.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
10th December, 1986 ---------------
D.H./U.S. Deputy Chairman