Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD88798 Case Number: LCR12138 Section / Act: S67 Parties: LUCAS SERVICE IRELAND LIMITED - and - IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION |
Dispute concerning implementation of a flexibility agreement.
Recommendation:
5. The Court considers that the Company's interpretation of the
flexibility agreement, supported by the letter of 28th May, 1985,
is correct and recommends accordingly.
Division: CHAIRMAN Mr Heffernan Mr Devine
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD88798 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12138
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: LUCAS SERVICE IRELAND LIMITED
(Represented by the Federated Union of Employers)
and
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning implementation of a flexibility agreement.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company is a distribution and service operation for motor
trade electrical components and employs twenty six workers. In
May, 1985 an agreement was negotiated between the Company and
Union for clerical workers following a re-organisation and
reduction in the workforce. The agreement contained a clause on
flexibility as follows:-
" 4. FLEXIBILITY
This is defined as being available to perform any
duties within the general skill and responsibility
level of the grade to which a person is allocated,
providing that individual is capable of performing
a particular function. Also, higher graded staff
could be asked to perform duties normally performed
by lower graded staff and, on a short-term basis,
lower graded staff could be asked to cover for
higher graded staff when absent."
In May, 1988 a worker returned from maternity leave and was
assigned to different duties to those she had performed prior to
her absence. The Union raised the matter with the Company and two
local level meetings were held. The Union on behalf of the worker
claimed that she should return to her old duties and that the
flexibility clause related only to the provision of cover for
absences not to changing workers from one job to another. The
Company's position was that the agreement allows management to
move workers between jobs in the same grade. No agreement could
be reached and on 17th June, 1988 the matter was referred to the
conciliation service of the Labour Court. A conciliation
conference was held on 14th July, 1988 no progress was made and on
18th October, 1988 the matter was referred to the Labour Court for
investigation and recommendation. The Court investigated the
dispute on 7th November, 1988.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3 1. The issue of flexibility was first raised by the Union
when it informed management that they could not expect the
workers to continue to extend cover for the post-redundancy
situation on an indefinite good will basis. There was never
any suggestion or intention that the workers would no longer
have jobs per se or that they would be liable to be moved from
job to job. The flexibility clause in the agreement (details
supplied to the Court) was agreed and has operated to date in
the manner intended, i.e. to provide cover for absences etc.
from within the clerical group to reduce as far as possible
the necessity for external cover thereby minimising the cost
implications for the employer. The Company does not have the
right to switch workers at will from job to job without regard
to any normal criteria.
2. If the interpretation now taken by management had been
put to the workers at the time, no agreement would have been
made. Between June, 1985 and May, 1988 management never
sought to place their current interpretation on this clause.
The worker concerned was informed on her return from maternity
leave that she was to be changed from her job as an accounts
clerk which she had carried out for ten years, to duties as a
VDU operator. No notice, proper discussion or opportunity for
representation was given to the worker. Management have
interpreted and applied clause 4 of the 1985 agreement
incorrectly and the worker should be returned to her proper
position.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. A flexibility clause had applied in the Company from
August, 1982 (details supplied to the Court) and its revision
was promoted by management which considered that the existing
flexibility criteria would be inappropriate following the
reduction in the workforce and a change in location of the
Company. The Union itself insisted that the issues of
flexibility be resolved prior to moving premises. The
Company's letter of 28th May, 1985 to the Union enclosing a
copy of the agreement for signature and the agreement itself
clearly state the intent of the flexibility clause (details
supplied to the Court). The clause on flexibility in the 1985
agreement is in stark contrast to the conditions applicable
from the 1982 agreement. The Union was aware of its existing
agreement and must have been aware that the words, intent and
purpose of the new flexibility agreement were different.
2. The words and intent contained in the 1985 flexibility
agreement give management the right to put clerical workers to
a range of duties provided they are within that grade.
Management is also of the opinion that it paid for this change
by the revision of pay and conditions at the time of the 1985
agreement. The flexibility now in operation is necessary for
the operation of a small integrated office. Management does
not accept the Union's interpretation of flexibility and the
Company's application of the flexibility clause is correct.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court considers that the Company's interpretation of the
flexibility agreement, supported by the letter of 28th May, 1985,
is correct and recommends accordingly.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John M Horgan
29th November, 1988 ----------------
U.M/U.S. Chairman