Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD87256 Case Number: LCR11229 Section / Act: S67 Parties: RTE - and - ETU |
Claim, on behalf of one storeman, that he be restored to his former work location in the technical stores.
Recommendation:
6. Against the general background of incidents mentioned by both
parties the Court accepts that the transfer of the worker was done
in the interest of maintaining good working relationships and that
no punitive element was intended or implied by the Authority.
However the Court, whilst recommending that the transfer should
stand does not consider that the proposed monitoring of the worker
involved is appropriate in the circumstances and recommends that
this should cease.
As to the allegations by the worker involved concerning two
colleagues, viewing these in the light of the undoubted tensions
which existed in the section, which the Authority has now taken
appropriate steps to defuse, the Court now considers that further
comment would be unnecessary and unhelpful.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr Collins Mr Devine
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD87256 THE LABOUR COURT LCR11229
CC87331 INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR11229
Parties: RADIO TELEFIS EIREANN
and
ELECTRICAL TRADES UNION
Subject:
1. Claim, on behalf of one storeman, that he be restored to his
former work location in the technical stores.
Background:
2. The worker concerned is employed by the Company in the
inventory control part of its stores section. There are three
locations in the inventory control area; central stores, goods
inward and registry. The worker has largely been assigned to
central stores. However, since 9th March, 1987 he has been
assigned to Registry for day work up to 5.30 p.m. and to central
stores between 5.30 p.m. and 8.30 p.m. and at weekends. The Union
considers he was transferred to registry as a result of a petition
being circulated by other workers and that the worker is being
disciplined. The Company does not accept that there is a
disciplinary nature to the transfer and stated it was made to
defuse an unhealthy tension in the area. The Union claimed that
the worker should be restored to his position in central
(technical) stores. The Company rejected the claim.
3. No agreement was reached through local negotiations and on
20th February, 1987 the matter was referred to the conciliation
service of the Labour Court. A conciliation conference was held
on 6th March, 1987 but no agreement was reached. On 26th March,
1987 the case was referred to the Court for investigation and
recommendation. A Labour Court hearing was held on 18th May,
1987.
Union's arguments:
4. (i) In January, 1987 the Union became aware that two senior
storemen were circulating a petition to the effect that
the worker should be removed from the stores. The
Union complained to the Authority and a meeting took
place about the matter in February, 1987. While the
Authority did state that it would be contrary to its
policy to have such a petition circulated it also
informed the Union that the worker was going to be
transferred to the Registry to defuse the tense
situation in the central stores. The Authority went on
to say that the worker would be on probation and his
behaviour would be monitored over an 18 month period.
The Authority would not state specifically what charges
were being brought against the worker. This action by
the Authority is unacceptable to the Union.
(ii) There was a conspiracy to have the worker removed from
the central stores. The object of moving him to the
Registry was to isolate him and put him under such
duress as to bring about his resignation, in effect
constructive dismissal.
(iii) The Authority decided to take punitive action against
the worker without advising him or his Union of its
intentions. It gave as its reasons vague and
unsubstantiated charges from anonymous people. It gave
the worker no opportunity to defend himself before the
decision was taken and confirmed at the level of
Personnel Management. It executed its decision while
the matter was still being processed through the normal
industrial relations channels.
(iv) The manner in which the Authority handled the matter
was in breach of clause 4 of its "personnel policy and
procedure manual which specifies that an employee will
be advised of the nature of the alleged offence and
will be afforded an adequate opportunity of presenting
his/her case." Since the Authority's first intimation
of its intention to take action was at the same meeting
as it indicated that there were charges, it did not
comply with this provision. It is clear that the
Authority ignored the manual.
(v) The Company's argument that it was not taking
disciplinary action against the worker is refuted by
its statements at the meeting of the 20th February,
1987. It is clear that this was not a simple
relocation of a worker in accordance with the
Agreement, as the Company tried to argue
retrospectively.
Authority's arguments:
5. (a) The Authority has acted within its rights and in
accordance with agreements and established practices
in the area.
(b) The worker has suffered no loss of pay or diminution of
status. There has been no change in his rostered hours
of duty so that the worker was able to maintain his
previous earnings in the form of roster duty
allowances. The worker has not been subject to any
disciplinary or punitive action. Rather the Authority
has taken action expected of a responsible employer in
an effort to restore harmony in the workplace.
(c) The duties assigned to the worker in registry are
appropriate to the grade of storeman. He is not being
asked to carry out any function which is not and has
not been carried out by his colleagues in that grade.
(d) The Authority wishes to state that the worker carries
out his duties comprehensively and conscientiously.
The problem lies in the manner in which the worker
carries out his duties. He has difficulty in
maintaining the normal working relationship with his
colleagues in stores, his supervisors and line
management and staff in other areas of the
organisation.
(e) While the Authority stresses its right to relocate the
worker it openly acknowledges that this was done
against a particular background. Relationships within
the stores area had deteriorated to such an extent that
not only was the normal harmony of the workplace
missing, but a potentially explosive situation existed.
The worker's inability to establish the necessary
rapport with his colleagues has been the major
contributory factor to that situation. What the
Authority did was to defuse that situation. This was
done as much for the worker's sake as anything else.
(f) The Authority wishes to place on record that since the
worker's relocation in registry there has been an
improvement in morale and the general atmosphere in
stores.
(g) Over the years the Authority has dealt with the worker
in a very patient and humane way. However it has not
been possible for the worker to recognise the rights of
others, particularly their right to disagree with him.
(h) The Authority has acted fairly having regard to the
rights of all concerned and has done what was right and
proper in this case.
RECOMMENDATION:
6. Against the general background of incidents mentioned by both
parties the Court accepts that the transfer of the worker was done
in the interest of maintaining good working relationships and that
no punitive element was intended or implied by the Authority.
However the Court, whilst recommending that the transfer should
stand does not consider that the proposed monitoring of the worker
involved is appropriate in the circumstances and recommends that
this should cease.
As to the allegations by the worker involved concerning two
colleagues, viewing these in the light of the undoubted tensions
which existed in the section, which the Authority has now taken
appropriate steps to defuse, the Court now considers that further
comment would be unnecessary and unhelpful.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
_____________________________
Deputy Chairman.
8th June, 1987.
T.O.M/J.C.