Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD89231 Case Number: LCR12353 Section / Act: S67 Parties: IRISH LIFE ASSURANCE PLC - and - IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION |
Dispute concerning the Company's decision to refuse the transfer request of one sales representative.
Recommendation:
5. Having considered the submissions made it seems to the Court
that for a number of reasons the issue of the right of an
individual to claim a debit for whatever reason has become
confused with the question of the difficulties under which the
particular worker in question is presently operating.
The Court accepts, and it seems apparent that the Union accepts,
that for clear commercial reasons the Company must maintain its
discretion on the question of transfers and appointments to
particular debits.
For this reason the Court does not recommend concession of the
Union's claim on the specific case at issue.
However, the Court does recommend that the Company and the Union
meet to consider the various difficulties mentioned by the Union
being experienced by the worker concerned with a view to assisting
him overcome them in the first instance and arranging to have him
available for the next suitable vacant debit when it arises.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr Collins Mr O'Murchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD89231 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12353
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: IRISH LIFE ASSURANCE PLC
AND
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning the Company's decision to refuse the
transfer request of one sales representative.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company employs approximately 500 sales representatives in
the Republic, of whom 150 are based in Dublin. Two years ago,
when a difficulty arose concerning a transfer request the Company
defined its policy on transfer to the Union. While it prefers not
to have any widescale transfers it is willing to give favourable
consideration to requests if (a) the representative has reasonable
service in the area and (b) the work record of the representative
is satisfactory under a number of defined criteria. (Each area is
called a Debit). This dispute concerns a representative based in
the North Inner City whose request for a transfer to Drimnagh was
refused on work record grounds. The Union then served strike
notice to expire on 4th April, 1989. The Company position is
that, while recognising the difficult environment in which the
representative operates, his performance under all criteria has
been extremely poor and thus the request was refused. The Company
says his request for a transfer would be favourably treated should
he show signs of improvement over a sustained period. The Union
points to the many changes of personnel prior to the worker's
appointment in 1984 and states that the locality in effect ruled
out the possibility of an improvement. In 1987, he was mugged in
the course of his duties. The Union contends that given both his
service to the Company and his age the worker should have first
choice of the debit in Drimnagh. The Union also pointed out that
the worker had previously been employed on the Drimnagh debit, and
that there had been no complaints about his performance at that
time.
The Company for its part, pointed out that there were other
difficult debits where the representatives were able to satisfy
the required performance criteria. Agreement could not be reached
on the issue at local level, and on 22nd March, 1989 the matter
was referred to the conciliation service of the Labour Court. A
conciliation conference took place on 30th March, 1989. Agreement
was not reached, and on 3rd April, 1989 the matter was referred to
the Labour Court for investigation and recommendation. A Court
hearing took place in Dublin on 6th April, 1989.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The worker is entitled to a transfer of debit especially
before an untried, inexperienced new appointee. The Union has
no difficulty with the criteria set out in the Company's
letter of 16th February, 1987. The worker's performance is
more than satisfactory, given the difficult, dangerous, and
stressful nature of his working conditions.
2. There is no record of disapproval of the worker's
performance. Any difficulty which the Company would have in
replacing the worker does not justify refusing him a transfer.
3. It is Company policy that field staff should preferably
live on or near their debits. Field Management in the Crumlin
area are quite happy to accommodate the worker. If Management
insist that the worker remain on his present debit, it will
amount to his constructive dismissal.
4. It is outrageous to expect a man of the worker's years to
cover such a debit. The physical demands are excessive and
allied to the previously mentioned other dangers, make working
conditions impossible. Conditions in general have
deteriorated so much in this area, that competitor companies
have decided to leave completely.
5. The Union's representations to the Company have always
been reasonable, and this case is particularly meritorious.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. Competition in the life assurance business in Ireland has
never been more intense. The effective management of the
Company's field operation is a key factor in responding to
this competition. In these circumstances the Company could
not jeopardise its business by transferring unsatisfactory
representatives to new debits. The Company, while generally
not favouring transfers, accepts that under certain conditions
it may be in the Company's and the representative's interests
to consider transfer requests. These conditions have been
described in a clear written policy.
2. The Company consulted fully with the Union regarding this
policy two years ago, and, at the Union's request, set out the
policy in writing for them. The Union is supporting the
transfer application of a representative whose work record
does not meet the defined criteria. If the Company acceded to
this request it would in effect be changing the policy to one
of transfer on demand as the work record of the representative
concerned has been consistently unsatisfactory under all three
major headings of ordinary branch sales, home service sales
and collections/service to clients. His performance
deficiencies have been drawn to his attention on several
occasions in recent years and the Company has been
disappointed with his response. The Company has already
indicated that it would take the worker's personal and work
circumstances into account in reviewing his performance in a
year's time.
3. The Union has asserted that the vacant debit is now in
dispute. The Company completely rejects this assertion for
two reasons:-
- No representative - even one who meets the policy
requirements for a transfer - has a right to a
particular debit: the Company reserves the right
to avail of the opportunity presented by a debit
becoming vacant to develop its business in
accordance with the terms of the Field Development
Plan negotiated with the Union (details supplied to
the Court).
- The issue in the present dispute is the Company's
insistence that the transfer of the representative
to any debit must be preceded by a real and
sustained improvement in his work performance. The
assertion by the Union that the filling of a
particular debit will cause an industrial dispute
is unacceptable, and disguises the true nature of
the issue.