Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD88587 Case Number: LCR12047 Section / Act: S67 Parties: WATERFORD CORPORATION - and - AMALGAMATED TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS UNION |
Claim by the Union that a traffic warden who was redeployed to the position of street inspector/litter warden, be reinstated to his former position.
Recommendation:
5. The Court, having considered the submissions made by the
parties, notes that the Corporation did not fully comply with the
Grievance and Disciplinary Procedures in this case. Nevertheless
the Corporation has the right to redeploy workers to areas where
they are deemed to be more suitable. In all the circumstances the
Court recommends that the claimant accepts his transfer to the new
position.
Division: Mr Fitzgerald Mr Shiel Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD88587 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12047
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: WATERFORD CORPORATION
and
AMALGAMATED TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim by the Union that a traffic warden who was redeployed to
the position of street inspector/litter warden, be reinstated to
his former position.
BACKGROUND:
2. The employee concerned in this case was appointed to the
position of traffic warden in 1982. Over a period of years there
were a number of complaints, about the employee from the public
arising from the issue of parking tickets. The worker's
supervisors spoke to him on a number of occasions and he was
advised to use his discretion in relation to minor breaches of the
Road Traffic Acts and not to antagonise unnecessarily, members of
the public. In August, 1987, a situation arose in which a doctor
on call to an emergency at a quayside store was given a parking
ticket, despite the fact that the employee was advised that it was
a doctor's car, and that the doctor was on an emergency call. The
warden gave a full report of the incident that involved the doctor
and acknowledged in hindsight that he should have dealt with the
matter on the spot and not have referred the matter, to City Hall.
The Corporation was not satisfied with the employee's explanation,
and issued a written warning to him dated 14th October, 1987, that
his position as a traffic warden was under review, and that if
there were further complaints about his behaviour that he would be
the subject of disciplinary action which might include
redeployment. On the 18th November the worker was given notice of
the Corporation's decision to redeploy him and on December 12th,
1987, the Union met with Corporation officials in an attempt to
resolve the matter. However no agreement was reached in these
discussions and the Union was advised that the warden was to be
redeployed as from 20th January, 1988. The dispute was referred
to the Conciliation Service of the Labour Court on the 1st
February, 1988. A conciliation conference was held on 7th April,
1988, but no agreement was reached. The matter was referred to
the Labour Court for investigation and recommendation on the 26th
July, 1988. A Labour Court hearing took place in Waterford on the
14th September, 1988.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The traffic warden concerned was forcibly redeployed to
the position of street inspector/litter warden, a position
that he has accepted to work at under protest, pending the
outcome of this hearing. Since January, 1988, two further
traffic wardens have been appointed by the Corporation. The
employee at no stage contravened either his terms of
employment or any of the governing Traffic Acts. Since his
appointment in 1982 the first and only letter of warning from
the Corporation came in the most questionable of
circumstances, on October 14th, 1987. This formal warning is
marked with a dictation date of September 14th, 1987, but
only received by the employee on October 14th. The Union
would contend that these warnings relate to the incident some
eight weeks beforehand which involved a member of the medical
profession, which subsequently received publicity in the
local media on the 21st August, 1987. It appears that media
pressure and the power of the medical profession, dictated
that the Corporation redeploy the warden.
2. While the warden acknowledges that he should have handled
the case involving the doctor in a different way nevertheless
it must be borne in mind that instructions at that time were
not to engage in verbal interaction but to refer motorists to
City Hall. This case is not just a matter of the Corporation
hastily putting together letters of warning, ignoring the
Grievance and Disputes Procedure, and using redeployment as a
discipline and subjecting the worker to trial by local press,
it is also a question of justice and an individual's rights,
character, ability and performance of his work. For five
years there were no warnings, then, as a result of an
incident involving the medical profession, a member's rights
and integrity were dismantled. The Union requests that the
warden he reinstated, or redeployed as a traffic warden
either on the streets or in the car parks.
CORPORATION'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The operating guidelines for wardens states among other
things that "the general approach of the traffic warden
should be advisory and or discretionary where possible the
main emphasis being to ensure that (a) the relevant
regulations and bye-laws are not abused and (b) the flow of
traffic is not unduly interrupted. The Corporation official
in charge of the section to which the traffic wardens are
attached had regular meetings with them to deal with problems
they may have encountered or enquiries he may have received,
and his advice to the wardens was always based on these
operating guidelines. In time it was evident that many of
the enquiries arising from the issue of parking tickets by
the warden were in respect of very minor infractions of the
law; and while maybe technically correct, issue of the
ticket had contributed nothing to the relief of any traffic
problem and served to antagonise the public, rather than
obtain their cooperation as was the original intention.
Notwithstanding advice from his superior over a considerable
period, the pattern of the warden's operation and reaction to
it continued at substantially the same level. While not
refusing to accept instructions, neither did the worker show
understanding or recognition of the manner and the extent of
difference between his performance, his duties and what was
required.
2. The situation reached a climax in August, 1987, involving
a medical doctor summoned to an emergency case in a quayside
department store; widely publicised and bringing the warden
service into disrepute. It was made clear to the warden that
his explanation for this incident was unacceptable, written
confirmation of the warning did not, due to an office
oversight issue until later, in October. Following the
August, 1987, incident, further problems were experienced in
relation to the warden's dealings with motorists and were
attributable to his inflexible approach and obtuse attitude.
This was the subject of a written warning on 14th October,
1987. The situation was now such as to render a review of
the warden's position with the Corporation inescapable. On
the 18th of November, 1987, the warden was given notice of a
decision to re-deploy him to the position of street
inspector/litter warden, a comparable uniformed position in
the service of the Corporation.
3. The Personnel Officer's notice referred to the warden's
record of performance of his duties as traffic warden, the
advice and warnings (verbal and written) tendered to him
concerning his work performance, the fact that his
redeployment had become necessary, in his own interest and in
the interest of the Corporation. The warden was advised that
he would be transferred on terms that would cause him no
financial loss, and that the conditions and duties of his
alternative employment were broadly similar in character and
performance to those of his existing employment. In fact the
worker's conditions, would be improved in that his finishing
time would henceforward correspond with normal office hours
and the requirement for Saturday working as normal would
cease. The Corporation is satisfied that the removal of the
warden from the traffic function was desirable and necessary.
In conducting the removal in the manner earlier described,
the Corporation showed every possible consideration towards
the employee. The Corporation must have the right to the
re-deployment of staff to secure and ensure proper discharge
of its functions under the various statutes under which it
operates.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court, having considered the submissions made by the
parties, notes that the Corporation did not fully comply with the
Grievance and Disciplinary Procedures in this case. Nevertheless
the Corporation has the right to redeploy workers to areas where
they are deemed to be more suitable. In all the circumstances the
Court recommends that the claimant accepts his transfer to the new
position.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Nicholas Fitzgerald
__________________________
6th October, 1988
T.O'D./P.W. Deputy Chairman.