Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD88399 Case Number: AD8843 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: AGRICULTURAL CREDIT CORPORATION PLC - and - AMALGAMATED TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS UNION |
Appeal by the Union against a Rights Commissioner's recommendation regarding compensation for a worker.
Recommendation:
7. The Court, having considered the submissions made by the
parties, finds no grounds for altering the Rights Commissioner's
recommendation which it upholds.
The Court so decides.
Division: Mr Fitzgerald Mr Shiel Mr O'Murchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD88399 APPEAL DECISION NO.AD4388
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 13(9)
PARTIES: AGRICULTURAL CREDIT CORPORATION PLC
and
AMALGAMATED TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Appeal by the Union against a Rights Commissioner's
recommendation regarding compensation for a worker.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker joined the Corporation in 1970 and by September,
1980, had reached the post of Collection Manager which carried the
grade of Executive Manager. In December, 1983, the Collection
Department was amalgamated into a new Farm Credit Control (FCC)
Division and the Collection Manager post ceased to exist. The
worker took up a new position in the FCC department at the same
grade and dealt with branch examinations. In August, 1985, the
worker agreed to a temporary transfer from his position in FCC to
the Naas Branch and was paid expenses of £75 per week. At the
time of the move the worker was given a written guarantee from
Management that his position in the FCC division would be retained
for him pending his return. In 1986/1987 following an examination
by a firm of Management Consultants re-organisations took place in
the Corporation which included the restructuring of the FCC
Division through the abolition of the Branch Examination Section,
and the setting up of a new Credit Management Division and
Collection Department. The result of this was that the worker's
old position was abolished. In the Collection Department a
position of Collection Manager was established and filled at
Senior Manager grade.
3. In 1987, the Union on behalf of the worker made a claim for
compensation for the failure of the Company to honour the written
guarantee given to the worker regarding his position and for loss
of promotional prospects arising as a result of the worker having
to re-locate to a new type of work. During 1987, a number of
posts were offered to the worker which he rejected and following
the discontinuation of payment of expenses on 25th December, 1987,
the worker returned to Head Office and took up duty in the
Internal Audit Department. The matter was subsequently referred
to a Rights Commissioner for investigation and recommendation. A
Rights Commissioner investigated the dispute on 12th and 19th
January, 1988, and issued the following recommendation -
"In the light of the above I believe that the worker is
entitled to some compensation in view of the specific
frustration, through no fault of management, of the clear
assurances given to him in 1985. It was a pity that the
position of Collection Manager had not been advertised within
the Corporation. Such advertising would not of itself have
assured the worker of his appointment to the new position
since such a decision must inevitably rest with Senior
Management.
In the light of the above I recommend that the Corporation
pay to the worker the sum of £1,500 and that he be advanced
from his present salary on the maximum point of the Executive
Manager Grade by the sum of two average increments. I
recommend that the worker accept this in full and final
settlement of his claims on the company with regard to the
frustration of his legitimate ambitions certainly in current
circumstances and that he accepts either one of two options
proposed to him by Management".
(The worker was mentioned by name in the Recommendation).
4. On 27th May, 1988, the Union appealed the Rights
Commissioner's Recommendation to the Labour Court under Section
13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. The Court
investigated the dispute on 24th June, 1988.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
5. 1. The worker has been involved in arrears collection for
virtually his entire career. While in the post of Collection
Manager he was responsible for all stages of follow-up
including pre-legal and legal proceedings work and on his
move to the FCC Department he dealt with the most serious
arrears cases which entailed setting up action plans and
ensuring that the required action was implemented by the
relevant branches and departments within the Corporation.
The worker moved in 1985 to the Naas Office at management's
request and sought and received a written guarantee that his
position in Farm Credit Control would be retained. It was
only on this basis that the worker agreed to the temporary
move to the Naas office. The worker's position in FCC has
been abolished in breach of the written undertaking given to
him.
2. The Collection Department has been re-established in its
old form and the position of Collection Manager has been
re-established at Senior Manager grade. That position was
filled without being offered to this worker or without
boarding. The Rights Commissioner in his recommendation
stated that it was a pity that the position of Collection
Manager was not advertised at the time within the Company.
3. The re-organisation which took place did not eliminate
any of the work which the worker was responsible for in Head
Office. Virtually all of the tasks done by this worker have
remained in Head Office and have been re-allocated in his
absence to the new Collection Manager and other workers. At
no stage was the worker advised of what was being done in the
FCC Division and was not given the opportunity of meeting the
consultants to discuss the functions in the area.
4. The worker has been dealt with in a most unjust manner
and is entitled to substantial compensation in respect of the
Corporation's failure to honour the written undertaking given
to him and the loss of promotional prospects which will
result as he has had to change to a new type of work in a
different department.
5. The Corporation refused to accept the recommendation of
the Rights Commissioner and the Union also felt that the
compensation recommended was inadequate. The compensation
recommended does not adequately reflect the frustration which
the worker felt at the Corporation's failure to honour its
undertaking and the disruption of his career in his chosen
department and the failure to board the re-established
position of Collection Manager. Regrading to the grade of
Senior Manager should be part of the compensation.
CORPORATION'S ARGUMENTS:
6. 1. The compensation awarded by the Rights Commissioner
represents a permanent pay increase of £1,400 per annum over
the worker's scale maximum and is out of all proportion to
any inconvenience involved. If the worker had remained in
Head Office his job would have diminished owing to
organisational changes and there are many situations at all
levels where this has happened without payment of
compensation. There is no basis for compensation as no other
worker in Farm Credit Control sought or obtained compensation
for the change. There is no connection between the failure
to retain the worker's FCC position for him and the
Collection Manager position which he had in the period up to
1983.
2. The compensation recommended by the Rights Commissioner
is the application of a formula in a 1981 agreement with this
Union in respect of other grades and is no longer in
operation. No precedent exists for compensating workers at
this level and even if such an agreement were in force and
applicable to this worker it would have enabled management to
assign the worker at their discretion. The worker was
accommodated in an Executive Manager position which would
otherwise have been boarded and he was therefore dealt with
in accordance with practice and precedent for workers at his
level. It is because of the experience gained by the worker
in the Naas Branch that management were able to offer him the
position in Internal Audit which he now holds. This position
is of equal standing to the worker's old position in Farm
Credit Control.
3. The failure to retain the worker's Farm Credit Control
post was due to Company wide policy considerations and not in
any way a decision affecting FCC division or the worker's job
alone. In providing the worker with a job at his own grade
in Internal Audit Department the Corporation has met in full
the spirit of the promise given to the worker. As the worker
was given equal treatment with others at his level and
higher and as he is at no loss or disadvantage there is no
basis for the payment of compensation.
DECISION:
7. The Court, having considered the submissions made by the
parties, finds no grounds for altering the Rights Commissioner's
recommendation which it upholds.
The Court so decides.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
20th July, 1988 Nicholas Fitzgerald
U.M./P.W. Deputy Chairman