Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD87228 Case Number: LCR11213 Section / Act: S20(1) Parties: TELECOM EIREANN - and - POOA |
Claim for equality between Night and Day telephone grades in the arrangements for the taking of urgent reliefs.
Recommendation:
5. As the Court understands, from information provided by
Management, that the union representing the majority of employees
does not wish to see the present regulations changed, it does not
recommend concession of the Union's claim.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr Shiel Mr Devine
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD87228 THE LABOUR COURT LCR11213
Section 20(1) INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR11213
Parties: TELECOM EIREANN
AND
POST OFFICE OFFICIALS' ASSOCIATION
Subject:
1. Claim for equality between Night and Day telephone grades in
the arrangements for the taking of urgent reliefs.
Background:
2. Night telephonists' duties are from 5.00 p.m. to 1.30 a.m.,
8.00 p.m. to 8.00 a.m. and 10.30 p.m. to 8.00 a.m. Day
telephonists' duties are from 8.00 a.m. to 8.00 p.m. (varying
hours). Each telephonist is allowed a meal relief of one hour,
two casual reliefs (20 minutes each) and urgent reliefs of five
minutes. When an operator obtains permission from the section
supervisor to go on a relief, he/she must sign out on the relief
sheet and sign back when returning. However, the day telephonists
are only required to do this when taking meal and casual reliefs
while the night operators must also do so when taking urgent
reliefs. The Association claimed that this is discriminatory and
sought discussions with the Company to have urgent reliefs
excluded from the signing on and off process. As Management does
not recognise the Association as representing any grades within
the Company, it refused to discuss the matter at local level and
on the 21st March, 1987, the Association referred the matter to
the Labour Court under Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations
Act, 1969, agreeing to be bound by the Court's recommendation. A
Court hearing took place on the 1st May, 1987.
Association's arguments:
3. (a) The present situation has existed since July, 1980, and
this difference in arrangements among grades who do the
same work at the same office is unwise and
discriminatory. In addition, it creates particular
problems for the section supervisors when he/she is
supervising a section where both day and night
telephonists are working.
(b) In July, 1980, and for some years later, the day grades
had what was known as fixed operating positions. The
night grades did not have this arrangement. However,
the position has now changed in that both day and night
grades now operate at the same position (switchboard)
for the full extent of their duty. This has been the
arrangement for approximately a year and on this basis
the Association is satisfied that no reason exists for
the continuation of different arrangements for the
grades.
(c) The requirement for night telephonists to sign a relief
sheet when going on and returning from an urgent relief
is unnecessary and is an out-moded practice. The
Association is unaware of any other grade being
required to record such details and doesn't believe
that such a practice exists in any other employment.
Company's arguments:
4. (i) The Company considers its attendance at the Court
hearing to be without prejudice to its position of
the non-recognition of the Association. The Company
would also point out the existence of established
industrial relations procedures, principally the
Transitional Scheme for Conciliation and Arbitration
of the Irish Telecommunications Board.
(ii) The Company considers that a proper and controlled
level of attendance at switchboards should be
maintained in order to provide a satisfactory
standard of service to customers. The arrangements
whereby staff going on urgent reliefs sign off and on
were introduced by agreement with the local branch of
the Postal and Telecommunications Workers' Union.
These arrangements were reviewed with that union in
1983 and no representations on the matter have been
received from it since.
(iii) There are well-established industrial relations
procedures in existence in the Company and it is
respectfully submitted that any departure from an
agreement reached with a recognised trade union would
have a detrimental effect on these procedures.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. As the Court understands, from information provided by
Management, that the union representing the majority of employees
does not wish to see the present regulations changed, it does not
recommend concession of the Union's claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court.
John O'Connell
____5th___June,____1987. ___________________
D. H. / M. F. Deputy Chairman