Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD87562 Case Number: LCR11539 Section / Act: S20(1) Parties: TELECOM EIREANN - and - POOA |
Dispute concerning the changes in the arrangements for the allocation of overtime to night telephonists employed at Drogheda Telephone Exchange.
Recommendation:
5. The Court having considered the submission from both parties
is satisfied that the changes in the overtime roster took place
following the usual consultation and that they comply with normal
practice.
The Court accordingly does not recommend concession of the claim.
Division: Ms Owens Mr McHenry Mr O'Murchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD87562 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR11539
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: TELECOM EIREANN
AND
POST OFFICE OFFICIALS' ASSOCIATION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning the changes in the arrangements for the
allocation of overtime to night telephonists employed at Drogheda
Telephone Exchange.
BACKGROUND:
2. There are eight senior night telephonists, six night
telephonists and six part-time night telephonists at the Drogheda
Telephone Exchange. Prior to the 1st May, 1987 overtime was
allocated on a rota basis. If an employee refused his or her turn
to work overtime they could carry it over and work it at a later
date. The Postal and Telecommunications Workers' Union approached
Management and proposed that the Drogheda exchange adopt a system
for allocating overtime used generally in the Company i.e. when
overtime became available it should be offered in turn to all
members of staff and if a staff member refuses this would count as
a "turn". Management welcomed the proposals and the revised
system was introduced with effect from 1st May, 1987. The Post
Office Officials' Association objected to the revised system on
the basis that there were no consultations with all the members of
staff and the new system discriminated against their members. The
Association sought a meeting with the Company. The Company
declined to meet the Association and also an invitation to attend
a conciliation conference. The Association referred the matter to
the Labour Court for investigation and recommendation under
Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. The
Association agreed to be bound by the Court's recommendation. A
Court hearing was held on 28th October, 1987. At the outset of
the hearing the Company stated that the Post Office Officials'
Association is not recognised as representing any grades within
the Company. The Postal and Telecommunications Workers' Union
holds rights of recognition for the grades of telephonist and
senior telephonist (night and day). The Company considers
therefore that its attendance at this hearing is without prejudice
to its position on the non-recognition of the Association.
ASSOCIATION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The new system was introduced without proper consultation
with all the workers involved or their representatives. The
majority of the workers were happy with the old system and see
the change as a worsening of their conditions of employment.
3. 2. Since the introduction of the new system the overtime has
been allocated in a manner which discriminates against our
members (details supplied to the Court).
3. The Association are asking the Court to recommend that the
Company restore the arrangements for the rotation of overtime
attendance to the system that existed prior to May, 1987 and
that this system continue until such time as any new
arrangement be introduced following consultation with all of
the workers. In the interim the Company is requested to
refrain from discriminating against certain members of its
staff.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The local branch of the P.T.W.U. requested that the system
of allocating overtime in Drogheda exchange be brought into
line with that already existing in other commercial areas of
the Company. It is considered that the new system is fairer
and more equitable to all concerned in so far as refusals will
be counted and cannot be carried forward.
2. The Company would not tolerate any discrimination against
any member of staff. If a member of staff has any complaint
or grievance they can make representations through their local
district manager.
3. The P.T.W.U. represents the majority of workers at the
Drogheda exchange and the new arrangements were introduced at
that Union's request. Workers were advised in advance of the
changes to be introduced.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court having considered the submission from both parties
is satisfied that the changes in the overtime roster took place
following the usual consultation and that they comply with normal
practice.
The Court accordingly does not recommend concession of the claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court.
Evelyn Owens
__20th__November,__1987. ___________________
M. D. / M. F. Deputy Chairman