Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD89173 Case Number: LCR12354 Section / Act: S20(1) Parties: TELECOM EIREANN - and - A GROUP OF WORKERS |
Claim on behalf of 14 overseers employed in the Central Telegraph Office (CTO) for re-grading to level 7.
Recommendation:
8. The Court notes that the issue in dispute has already been
dealt with by the Union representing the claimants and the Company
and is the subject of an agreement between the parties under the
Joint Conciliation Council.
The Court further notes that the claimants referred the dispute to
the Court under Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act,
1969 and that Telecom Eireann did not consider it advisable to
attend the hearing. On the basis of the evidence presented by
the claimants the Court does not consider that it would be
justified in altering the terms of the agreement made between the
Unions/Telecom Eireann.
The Court accordingly does not recommend concession of the claim.
Division: Ms Owens Mr McHenry Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD89173 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12354
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 20(1)
PARTIES: TELECOM EIREANN
AND
A GROUP OF WORKERS
SUBJECT:
1. Claim on behalf of 14 overseers employed in the Central
Telegraph Office (CTO) for re-grading to level 7.
BACKGROUND:
2. Following discussions between the Company and Staff Panel on
the re-structuring of the clerical/administrative grades the
Company offered the grade of level 7 to travelling telephone
supervisors. The overseers were offered the lower grade of level
8 provided they re-deployed. Prior to the restructuring the
overseers pay scale has always been higher than that of the
travelling telephone supervisor. (Details supplied to the Court).
3. The workers concerned are members of the Communication
Managers' Union which was part of the Staff Panel involved in the
negotiations on re-structuring. During the course of the
negotiations the Union sought assurances that the overseers would
be treated no less favourably than travelling telephone
supervisors. The Company advised the Union that it was not
prepared to concede level 7 to the overseers. The overall
re-structuring package was accepted by the Staff Panel. The Union
concerned recorded dissatisfaction with regard to what was on
offer to the overseers.
4. The workers concerned referred their case on an individual
basis for investigation and recommendation to the Labour Court
under Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. The
workers agreed to be bound by the Court's recommendation.
5. The Company, by letter dated 9th March, 1989, informed the
Court that it would not be attending or represented at the Court
hearing as it considered that to do so would be in breach of the
Transitional Scheme of Conciliation and Arbitration.
6. A Court hearing was held on the 20th March, 1989.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
7. 1. Prior to the re-structuring the overseers pay scale was
always higher than the travelling telephone supervisor
(details supplied to the Court). That position is now
reversed.
2. The workers concerned have also been disqualified from
confined competitions for promotion to the grade of level 7
because they have refused to re-deploy to the grade of
level 8.
3. The workers have lost an additional 3 days annual leave.
RECOMMENDATION:
8. The Court notes that the issue in dispute has already been
dealt with by the Union representing the claimants and the Company
and is the subject of an agreement between the parties under the
Joint Conciliation Council.
The Court further notes that the claimants referred the dispute to
the Court under Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act,
1969 and that Telecom Eireann did not consider it advisable to
attend the hearing. On the basis of the evidence presented by
the claimants the Court does not consider that it would be
justified in altering the terms of the agreement made between the
Unions/Telecom Eireann.
The Court accordingly does not recommend concession of the claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court,
Evelyn Owens
___17th___April,___1989. ___________________
M. D. / M. F. Deputy Chairman