Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD86998 Case Number: LCR11016 Section / Act: S67 Parties: BORD BAINNE - and - ITGWU |
Redeployment of a worker.
Recommendation:
6. Having considered all the circumstances outlined in the
submissions, the Court is of the opinion that the claimant is not
being unfairly treated in the proposed transfer. The Court
accordingly recommends that the Union should accept the transfer
under their existing agreement with the Company.
Division: Mr Fitzgerald Mr Heffernan Mr O'Murchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD86998 THE LABOUR COURT LCR11016
CC861936 INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
RECOMMENDATION NO. 11016
PARTIES: BORD BAINNE
(Represented by the Federated Union of Employers)
and
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
Subject:
1. Redeployment of a worker.
Background:
2. The Bord was constituted as a semi-State body in 1961 and
became a private company in 1973 following Ireland's entry into
the European Economic Community. The Bord's function is to market
products for the co-operative dairy industry.
3. The Bord operates three clerical grades within its grading
structure viz. grade 8 (recruitment clerical grade) grade 7A
(clerical posts) and grade 7 (senior clerical posts). The worker
involved in this claim is employed on a grade 7A post in the
stocks section of the Company's accounts department. The Company
proposes to transfer the worker to another vacant grade 7A post
in the accounts payable section of the accounts department, on the
basis that there is insufficient work in the stocks area for the
present staffing level, and divide his work amongst the four grade
7 workers in that section. The Union objected to the proposed
transfer and as no agreement could be reached at local level the
matter was referred, on 25th November, 1986, to the conciliation
service of the Labour Court. Following a conciliation conference,
which took place on 9th December, 1986, the claim was referred to
the Labour Court for investigation and recommendation. The Court
investigated the dispute on 30th January, 1987.
Union's arguments:
4. (i) The workers represented by the Union in the Bord have
always co-operated fully with management in the matter
of staffing levels and new technology. However, in
this case management never advised the Union that
there was a surplus capacity in the stocks department
or how this had arisen. Furthermore, an explanation
is required from management as to how it suddenly
discovered this surplus in November, 1986, in the
stocks section, having filled a vacancy in this
department only two months earlier.
(ii) Where a surplus capacity exists then an equitable
solution is required and matters of this nature are
resolved amicably in employments generally, without
recourse to third party intervention. What has
created suspicion in the minds of workers in the Bord
about the particular transfer in question is that the
Company failed to bring to the attention of the Union
that a surplus capacity existed in the stocks
department. It arbitrarily upgraded a grade 8 post to
grade 7A status, after it became vacant, for no
obvious reason and then proceeded to transfer the
worker concerned, who is the most senior service staff
worker in the stocks department and who is the
secretary of the Union committee, to the newly created
7A position.
(iii) Grade 8 posts are solely for new recruits and that is
how the post in accounts, which has been upgraded to
7A without any apparent change in the job content, in
perceived by all staff. In these circumstances, and
given his seniority the worker is fully justified in
resisting a transfer to such a position.
(iv) There are a variety of alternatives available to the
Bord (details supplied to the Court) to achieve its
stated objectives of a reduction in staff in the
stocks department. These would include the transfer
of a grade 7 worker from the stocks department to a
vacant grade 7 post, a number of which exist in other
areas of the Bord, or additional work could be
allocated to the stocks department, particularly work
that had previously been performed there, thereby
obviating the necessity for any staff movement from
this department.
(v) The Union has tried unsuccessfully to get management
to approach this problem in accordance with normal
industrial relations criteria but to no avail. It
would appear that the Bord is determined, regardless
of anything else, to move a certain individual in
stocks. Given the range of options that the Bord has
had in this case the worker concerned will remain
totally opposed to any question of compulsory
relocation. Apart altogether from the implications
for the individual it would have serious implications
for the future of all of the workers represented by
the Union. Therefore, failing to achieve a solution
to this issue through any of the avenues proposed, the
Union considers that the worker with the least amount
of service in the stocks department should be required
to move.
Company's arguments:
5. (a) There is insufficient work available to the worker in
the stocks department to warrant his full time
attention. Through discussions, it has been accepted
by the higher graded workers in this department that
the work of the individual concerned could be
reasonably shared among them.
(b) The worker is the only grade 7A worker in the stocks
section and acknowledging that this section could be
satisfactorily staffed with one employee less, it
seems sensible that he should be transferred to a
similarly graded position in another area where a
vacancy does exist, e.g. the accounts payable section.
The Union has suggested that one of the higher graded
employees in the area should be transferred to the
lower graded job in the creditors department. This
does not make any sense whatsoever to the Bord, but
does indicate the Union's acceptance not only of the
principle, but also the need for the transfer.
(c) The Bord's wish to transfer the employee is in accord
with its agreement with the Union on flexibility and
such an agreement has been reaffirmed in various wage
agreements. Indeed, as part of a recent agreement on
computerisation, the Bord guaranteed all permanent
staff that they would not lose their jobs as a direct
result of computerisation and despite great
difficulty, the Bord has struggled hard to achieve
this aim.
(d) The Bord is facing very difficult times, given the
uncertainty in the dairy industry, and it must run an
efficient organisation in order to reduce current
administrative costs. In this respect, employee costs
represent approximately 57% of the Bord's total
administrative budget. Therefore, the Bord needs to
be in a position to deploy its resources to the areas
of greatest need.
(e) The worker's transfer increases his job security and
opens up career development for him by exposing him to
areas of accounts, other than stocks.
RECOMMENDATION:
6. Having considered all the circumstances outlined in the
submissions, the Court is of the opinion that the claimant is not
being unfairly treated in the proposed transfer. The Court
accordingly recommends that the Union should accept the transfer
under their existing agreement with the Company.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Nicholas Fitzgerald
20th February, 1987 _________________________
T.McC./P.W. Deputy Chairman