Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD8967 Case Number: LCR12333 Section / Act: S20(1) Parties: TELECOM EIREANN - and - POST OFFICE OFFICIALS' ASSOCIATION |
Dispute concerning the alteration of attendance arrangements of night telephone operator grades at the Central Telephone Exchange.
Recommendation:
5. Having considered the submissions made by the parties and
noting that the Company has already concluded an Agreement with
the majority Union governing the new working arrangements, the
Court does not recommend concession of the Association's claim.
Division: Mr Fitzgerald Mr Heffernan Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD8967 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12333
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
SECTION 20(1)
PARTIES: TELECOM EIREANN
AND
POST OFFICE OFFICIALS' ASSOCIATION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning the alteration of attendance arrangements
of night telephone operator grades at the Central Telephone
Exchange.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company and the Postal and Telecommunications Workers'
Union recently negotiated an agreement concerning new attendance
arrangements for night staff. This agreement means that instead
of being employed solely at night and early evening, all senior
night telephonists and night telephonists in the Central Telephone
Exchange can now be placed either on a 16 hour rota which attracts
a premium of 25%, involving attendances of two days and three
evenings a week or a 24 hour rota which attracts a premium of
33.3% and involves day, evening and night attendances. Payment of
night duty allowance and Saturday allowance ceased although the
Sunday allowance was retained. These new working arrangements
were implemented on the 5th February, 1989. The POOA objects to
these new arrangements and claims that it wasn't consulted about
any of the changes. The Company does not recognise the
Association as representing any grades within the organisation,
therefore no local level discussions took place nor was the
Company willing to attend a conciliation conference on the matter.
The Association subsequently referred the matter to the Labour
Court under Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969,
agreeing beforehand to be bound by the Court's Recommendation. A
Court hearing took place on the 24th February, 1989.
ASSOCIATION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. Neither the Association nor any of its members were
consulted about these changes. The first notification
received by the claimants was a letter dated 15th December,
1988, informing them of Management's decision to place them on
shift work and to abolish both night duty and Saturday
allowances (shift premium was to be paid in lieu of the
allowance). No compensation was offered for the change in
conditions of service or for the disturbance being caused in
the lives of people who have been on regular evening and night
duty for over twenty years.
2. All the claimants were specifically recruited by the Civil
Service Commission, under the provisions of the Civil Service
Commissioners' Acts, to work early evenings and nights. This
is contained in their conditions of service and is their
contract of employment. The unilateral changes recently
implemented by Management constitute a breach of their
contracts of employment.
3. On previous occasions in the past few years when members
of the Association came to the Labour Court seeking voluntary
transfers to day duties, the Company argued against
specifically on the grounds that the workers concerned were
recruited specially for early evening and night work and
consequently had no right to transfer to day duties. For
example in EE 10/81 (Appealed - DEE 2-82 refers) the Equality
Officer concluded, "the purpose of recruitment to each grade
is different in that night telephonists are recruited
specifically for night telephone operating work, and
telephonists are specifically recruited for day duties. Staff
are recruited to each grade by means of separate
competitions." On the basis of the Company's statements and
the Equality Officer's conclusions, which were upheld by the
Court, the Association cannot see how the Company can
reconcile its recent decision to unilaterally breach its legal
contract of employment with the claimants.
4. A further consequence of these new arrangements is that
the Company recently discontinued a long-standing arrangement
whereby any of the night operator grades could be excluded
from any particular duty and afforded certain attendance
arrangements in the event of genuine health or domestic
problems (details supplied to the Court).
5. The Association is seeking the restoration of the
claimants' evening and night duties and that following such
restoration, they be given the option of whether or not they
wish to voluntarily vary their conditions of service in
relation to attendance etc. and that the Company facilitate
any member who due to health or domestic problems, is unable
to perform duties under the new system.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. 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 night telephone operator grades. The Company
considers that its attendance at the Court hearing is without
prejudice to its position on the non-recognition of the
Association. The Company also wishes to point out the
existence of established industrial relations procedures,
principally the Transitional Scheme of Conciliation and
Arbitration of the Irish Telecommunications Board.
2. A combination of factors such as a considerable fall-off
in operator assisted calls, the availability of early
retirement and voluntary severance schemes and the option
available to telephone operating (day) grades to redeploy to
the clerical stream in the Company, have led over the past few
years to a serious imbalance of staffing on the day and night
sides in the Central Telephone Exchange. The options for
severance and early retirement have been availed of to a
greater extent by the day staff in the exchange and this has
led to an understaffing on the day duties. There has always
been a surplus of staff on the night side as it has been
necessary to have sufficient staff on duty to cover the uneven
flow of traffic. However this surplus has reached a
disproportionate level in the past few years. Management
estimated in early 1987 that there was a surplus to
requirements of 18 staff on "all night" duties i.e.
midnight-8a.m. and about 60-70 staff surplus to requirements
between 5p.m. and midnight. These two factors, the shortage
of staff on day duties in the Central Telephone Exchange and
the surplus of staff on the night duties, were beginning to
cause serious operational problems which had to be urgently
addressed by the Company.
3. In view of the seriousness of the situation the Company
entered into negotiations with the Postal and
Telecommunications Workers' Union with a view to utilising
surplus night staff on day duties in the Central Telegraph
Exchange, (the night telephonist grades have always had a 24
hour, seven day liability as a condition of service). With
the agreement of the Union, a 24 hour rota and a 16 hour rota
(day and evening attendances), were introduced on a trial
basis for night staff in the C.T.E. in 1987. Participation in
the rotas was voluntary and a premium of 33.3% was paid to
staff on the 24 hour rota while staff on the 16 hour rota were
paid 25%. The shift premium was a comprehensive payment and
staff on the rotas did not receive night duty allowance or
Saturday allowance.
3. 4. The operation of these rotas was subject to review and
both Management and Union representatives took the view that
the pilot scheme had operated effectively. The Company
entered into further discussions with the P.T.W.U. towards the
end of 1988 with a view to extending the participation of
night staff on the new rotas. Following detailed negotiations
between the Company and the recognised trade union, agreement
was reached on new attendance arrangements which would
comprehend all night operator staff in the Central Telephone
Exchange (details of scheme outlined in paragraph 2 above).
5. Faced with a serious operational problem, the Company
sought through negotiation with the recognised trade union to
establish a new set of attendance arrangements which would
help resolve the problem while at the same time ensuring that
there was no loss to staff as a result of the changed pattern
of attendances. The Company is confident that the agreement
reached with the P.T.W.U. on changes in the attendance
patterns of night telephone operating staff in the Central
Telephone Exchange is a fair and equitable approach to a very
difficult situation and acted to safeguard the employment of
these staff. It also wishes to stress that any departure from
agreements which have been properly negotiated with the
recognised trade Unions would have serious implications for
industrial relations in the Company.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. Having considered the submissions made by the parties and
noting that the Company has already concluded an Agreement with
the majority Union governing the new working arrangements, the
Court does not recommend concession of the Association's claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court,
Nicholas Fitzgerald
___31st___March,___1989. _______________________
D. H. / M. F. Deputy Chairman