Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD8953 Case Number: LCR12287 Section / Act: S67 Parties: ADT SECURITY LIMITED - and - IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION |
Opposition by a worker to rationalised supervisory structure.
Recommendation:
7. On the basis of the submissions made and the further
information made available at the hearing, the Court is fully
satisfied that all appropriate industrial relations negotiating
procedures were followed through by the Company, resulting in an
agreement with the Union which satisfied the majority of the
members concerned.
In these circumstances the Court has no grounds whatsoever for
upholding the claim and accordingly rejects it.
Division: Ms Owens Mr McHenry Mr Devine
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD8953 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12287
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: ADT SECURITY LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATED UNION OF EMPLOYERS)
AND
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Opposition by a worker to rationalised supervisory structure.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company is involved in the provision of security services,
including static guards, installation and maintenance of alarm
systems, and the provision of control monitoring facilities from
its central station at Phibsboro. The Company decided to
rationalise its supervisory structure in 1987, in order to combat
losses which its guarding section had been incurring, (details
supplied to the Court). The rationalisation procedures involved
making the posts of guarding services supervisor redundant. The
worker concerned in the current dispute was one of four who held
the post of guarding services supervisor. Each of the men
concerned were told that there were promotional posts available,
and it was suggested to them that they could apply for these
promotional outlets. The workers were also given the option of
taking redundancy and having their employment terminated.
3. The Union on behalf of the four workers, negotiated a
settlement with the Company (through the conciliation service of
the Labour Court) which was satisfactory to three of the workers.
The worker concerned in this dispute was not satisfied with the
new arrangements. He did not apply for the promotional outlet as
he contended that the Company had intimated to him that he would
not be considered. In his view his difficulties with the Company
stemmed from a memo, which he had felt duty bound to submit to the
Company's higher management over the heads of local management
(details supplied to the Court).
4. The worker submitted alternative rationalisation proposals
which he says were acceptable to the three other workers
concerned. The Union, while it had negotiated the original
rationalisation plan, had reserved its position in the event of
there being objections from individual workers. Accordingly, it
sought to advance the worker's case with the Company. A meeting
was arranged at local level at which the worker attended but no
agreement was reached. The matter was referred to the
conciliation service of the Labour Court on the 25th August, 1988.
A conciliation conference took place on 3rd October, 1988.
Agreement was not reached, and the matter was referred to the
Labour Court for investigation and recommendation on 25th January,
1989. A Court hearing took place in Dublin on 10th February,
1989.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
5. 1. The worker had moved up the career ladder in the Company,
and had maintained his employment despite two takeovers. He
is now back where he started, after seven years of hard work.
The Company, as one of the biggest security organisations in
the world, should have proven a fertile environment for a
person of the worker's character to advance his career. The
worker lost out on a proposed supervisory bonus scheme, and a
sick pay scheme. He had a regulated planned work roster, with
a 2 in 4 liability for week-end working. Since his effective
demotion, the worker has not had a single week-end off.
2. The worker's standing within the Company has been
irreparably damaged, and his career prospects have been
blighted. The Company should reconsider his alternative
proposal vis a vis the rationalisation of their supervisory
structure. The solution now in place has not, in any case,
proved to be very workable.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
6. 1. The restructuring of the supervisory grades was a
considered response by the Company to changes in the market
place, thus allowing the Company to meet its present
requirements and future needs. The plan essentially involved
a cost saving on the supervisory function which would enhance
the economic viability of the Company. The Company at all
times consulted, negotiated, and considered the employees
feelings on the proposed restructuring. Many meetings were
held, correspondence was exchanged, and considerable
management time, effort and patience was expended in listening
to and considering the employees viewpoint. As a direct
result of this consultation process the need for redundancies
was obviated.
6. 2. An agreement was reached between the Union and the Company
through the Labour Court's conciliation service. The Company
has abided by and adhered to this agreement. The Company
contends that it would not be good or prudent industrial
relations practice to recommend individual concessions that
would breach this agreement.
3. The worker has not suffered any loss of earnings due to
the rationalisation, nor has he suffered any loss of bonus, as
no bonus was ever paid to the guarding supervisors.
RECOMMENDATION:
7. On the basis of the submissions made and the further
information made available at the hearing, the Court is fully
satisfied that all appropriate industrial relations negotiating
procedures were followed through by the Company, resulting in an
agreement with the Union which satisfied the majority of the
members concerned.
In these circumstances the Court has no grounds whatsoever for
upholding the claim and accordingly rejects it.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court,
Evelyn Owens
__20th__February,___1989. ___________________
P. F. / M. F. Deputy Chairman