Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD88781 Case Number: LCR12073 Section / Act: S67 Parties: RADIO TELEFIS EIREANN - and - NATIONAL UNION OF JOURNALISTS |
Dispute concerning the transfer of a worker.
Recommendation:
5. The Court notes that the NUJ in its submissions states that it
does "not dispute the employer's rights in transferring people"
and agrees with the claimant's statement that he "should not be
required to leave the position without adequate explanation and
due cause".
The Court finds that he has been given an adequate explanation of
the reason for his relocation.
The Dublin post on offer to the claimant represents a promotion
and in the management's view is more in keeping with his abilities
as an experienced journalist. The Court therefore is satisfied
that the Authority is acting solely and properly in the interest
of the broadcasting service. In these circumstances the Court
recommends that he should accept the transfer.
In the unique personal circumstances of the case the Court also
recommends that the claimant be paid a sum of #2,500 in addition
to the package already offered.
Division: CHAIRMAN Mr Heffernan Mr Devine
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD88781 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12073
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: RADIO TELEFIS EIREANN
and
NATIONAL UNION OF JOURNALISTS
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning the transfer of a worker.
BACKGROUND:
2. In October, 1987 a member of management met with the worker in
Limerick to discuss his work. On 3rd February, 1988 the Company
wrote to the worker advising him that he was to be moved to a post
in Dublin. On 17th February, 1988 the worker responded to the
effect that in his opinion the position in Limerick was permanent
and that he should not be required to move from the position
without adequate explanation and reasons. On 4th March, 1988 the
Company again wrote to the worker stating that the view of senior
management was that the worker was not performing adequately in
his post. A meeting took place between Management and the worker
in March, 1988. On 8th April, 1988 the worker met the Director of
Personnel who in May, 1988 wrote to the worker with details of the
situation in relation to removal expenses, etc. In April, 1988
the Union wrote to the Company seeking a meeting on the issue.
Local level discussions took place in May and August, 1988. On
28th July 1988 the Company wrote to the worker offering him a post
in the Newsroom in Dublin. No agreement could be reached and on
25th August, 1988 the matter was referred to the conciliation
service of the Labour Court, a conciliation conference took place
on 8th September, 1988 following which a meeting took place
between the worker and management at which a financial package was
offered to the worker, which was rejected. On 21st September,
1988 management wrote to the worker and asked him to report for
duty in Dublin on 10th October, 1988. The worker did not report
for duty in Dublin on 10th October, 1988 and he was suspended
without pay. On 18th October, 1988 the matter was referred to the
Labour Court for investigation and recommendation. The Court
investigated the dispute on 19th October, 1988.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The worker does not wish to transfer out of Limerick
because of professional, personal, social, financial, family
and medical considerations. The employer's rights in
transferring workers is not disputed but in this particular
case the Company does not have the absolute right to transfer
without taking into account other factors affecting the worker
concerned. This principle was upheld by the Employment
Appeals Tribunal in the case of Conway v The Ulster Bank (UD
474/1981) (details supplied to the Court). The Company is
attempting to use the power of transfer outside the limits of
the contract in this particular case. It was also
unreasonable for the Company to insist on the transfer taking
place while the issue was going through Labour Court
procedures.
2. Further training is often required of senior and
experienced personnel in the Company. However, in this case
it has refused to give the worker an opportunity of
re-training, which is most unfair and unreasonable. The
Company did not at any stage formally present any evidence of
dissatisfaction to the worker and has not provided any
criteria by which the satisfactory discharge of the duties of
this post can be gauged and has failed to enter into any
constructive dialogue about the reasons for the transfer. The
transfer should be withdrawn and the worker re-instated
immediately without loss of pay and he should undergo
retraining in line with the existing agreement and his
progress evaluated by the joint Company/Union Training
Committee.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The nature of broadcasting and the national profile of
the organisation means that the facility to transfer is a
fundamental part of every worker's conditions of service. The
Company is within its rights to transfer this worker. The
Company recognises that where a transfer involves relocation
of household, that this should only take place for good and
sufficient reasons and after adequate notice has been given.
In this case the reasons for the worker's transfer have been
clearly stated and adequate notice was given to the worker to
make the necessary arrangements. In October, 1987 he was put
on notice that he would be required to transfer and in
February, 1988 management wrote to him formally setting out
the position.
4. 2. Many workers, some of whom are at very high levels in
the Company, have had to accept a change of duties within the
past number of years. Further training would not be
appropriate in this case. The transfer to the post in Dublin
is a promotion for the worker and involves an increase in
salary, the worker will suffer no diminution in status. The
Company recognises that the worker will experience specific
personal and domestic difficulties in transferring to Dublin
and is prepared to deal with these in a sympathetic and
humanitarian manner. The worker has been offered a financial
package unique to him on a confidential basis to take account
of his specific difficulties. In all the circumstances, the
Company has acted fairly, reasonably and within its rights.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court notes that the NUJ in its submissions states that it
does "not dispute the employer's rights in transferring people"
and agrees with the claimant's statement that he "should not be
required to leave the position without adequate explanation and
due cause".
The Court finds that he has been given an adequate explanation of
the reason for his relocation.
The Dublin post on offer to the claimant represents a promotion
and in the management's view is more in keeping with his abilities
as an experienced journalist. The Court therefore is satisfied
that the Authority is acting solely and properly in the interest
of the broadcasting service. In these circumstances the Court
recommends that he should accept the transfer.
In the unique personal circumstances of the case the Court also
recommends that the claimant be paid a sum of #2,500 in addition
to the package already offered.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John M Horgan
21st October,1988 ----------------
U.M./U.S. Chairman