Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD90415 Case Number: LCR12994 Section / Act: S67 Parties: AMALGAMATED WHOLESALERS LIMITED - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Dispute concerning redeployment and compensation.
Recommendation:
5. The Court has fully considered all of the issues raised by the
parties in their oral and written submissions. Given the position
held by the complainant in the management structure of the Company
the Court can recognise and understand the attitude of the
employee concerned to the redeployment proposed. In arriving at
its recommendation the Court has noted the expressed desire of the
employee to continue in employment. The Court has also noted that
the Company during negotiations had indicated that the scope for
redeployment was limited. Given all of the circumstances of the
case it is the view of the Court that the Company offer outlined
in the letter of 13th July, 1990 subject to an increase in the
compensation amount to #10,000 be accepted.
The Court so recommends.
Division: MrMcGrath Mr Brennan Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD90415 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12994
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 AND 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: AMALGAMATED WHOLESALERS LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATION OF IRISH EMPLOYERS)
and
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning redeployment and compensation.
BACKGROUND:
2. The claim concerns a worker who was employed as a transport
manager/assistant warehouse manager at the Company's Greenhills
Road site. In April, 1990 Management advised the Union that the
Company proposed to introduce a development plan for the warehouse
and transport area. The plan which included computerisation among
other new functions provided for the elimination of the positions
of warehouse manager and transport/assistant warehouse manager and
the appointment of an operations controller who would have a wide
range of responsibilities. The Company offered both workers
redeployment with compensation on the grounds that their jobs no
longer existed. The warehouse manager has accepted the Company's
offer of redeployment with compensation. The worker concerned
although originally accepting the Company's offer in a letter
dated 13th July, 1990 (details supplied to the Court) subsequently
changed his mind. The post offered to him was that of warehouse
cleaner which the Union claims is unsuitable considering his
previous position and long service. The Company maintains that it
has no other suitable alternative employment to offer the worker
and that the option is redundancy. The issue could not be
resolved locally and the dispute was referred to the conciliation
service of the Labour Court on the 12th June, 1990. A
conciliation conference was held on the 3rd July, 1990 but no
agreement was reached. The Company appointed an operations
controller on the 23rd July, 1990. The worker concerned was not
eligible to apply for the post as the Company maintains he was not
sufficiently qualified to do so and had no computer skills. The
issue was referred to the Labour Court on the 25th July, 1990. A
Court hearing was held on the 10th August, 1990.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The worker has been very unfairly treated by the Company
and placed in a dilemma in that he has been offered the
position of cleaner in the warehouse while being told in no
uncertain terms that he is not suitably qualified to apply for
the new position of operations controller. He was told that
he either accept the offer of redeployment or else redundancy,
at a time when his family commitments are such that to be
without a job would be disastrous for him.
2. It is obvious that the worker is not wanted in the Company
in any comparable job to the one which he held and it is
equally plain that he was not to be a competitor for the new
job. The Union believes that the raising of standards for the
new post, has as its purpose the elimination of the worker
concerned who had progressed through the ranks and who has
vast practical experience to offer the Company.
3. The transfer out of the warehouse of the Manager leaves
some work (previously performed by the worker concerned) still
to be done and could be done by him. The Union has attached a
list of duties (details supplied to the Court) and it can be
seen that many of these duties will continue to be required to
be performed in the new plan. This work is being taken away
from the worker.
4. While much of the work may be computerised in the new
system something that is commonplace in most employments, the
Union sees no reason why the worker concerned cannot be given
suitable computer training and given a proper position where
he can make his contribution to the Company. There is ample
scope within the Company, where a position other than cleaning
can be found for a person of the worker's standing and
experience.
5. If a suitable alternative position cannot be found for the
worker the Union is seeking better compensation than that
offered by the Company and is seeking further discussions on
this issue.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The offer made to the worker concerned is in line with
proposals which were accepted by the former warehouse manager.
2. The proposals (details supplied to the Court) that emerged
as a result of a conciliation conference were subsequently
accepted by the worker and his Union and the Union confirmed
this in writing to the Company. The worker was represented by
his Union at all stages during conciliation.
3. The worker's job as transport manager/assistant warehouse
manager has been subsumed into the distribution manager's job.
The worker is not qualified to do this job and he does not
possess the necessary computer skills. The new distribution
manager also runs the warehouse section.
4. As part of the re-deployment offer the Company has
guaranteed to secure the worker's present earnings by
establishing a 'personal fixed bonus.' This offer also fixes
his pensionable earnings at his current basic rate which will
be adjusted according to agreed annual increments.
5. If the worker does not wish to take up the offer of
re-deployment and compensation the only other option is
redundancy on terms in line with previous settlements in the
Company.
6. The Company considers that it has a freely negotiated
agreement with both the worker and his Union and that both
parties are now honour bound to uphold and defend this
agreement.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court has fully considered all of the issues raised by the
parties in their oral and written submissions. Given the position
held by the complainant in the management structure of the Company
the Court can recognise and understand the attitude of the
employee concerned to the redeployment proposed. In arriving at
its recommendation the Court has noted the expressed desire of the
employee to continue in employment. The Court has also noted that
the Company during negotiations had indicated that the scope for
redeployment was limited. Given all of the circumstances of the
case it is the view of the Court that the Company offer outlined
in the letter of 13th July, 1990 subject to an increase in the
compensation amount to #10,000 be accepted.
The Court so recommends.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Tom McGrath
____________________________
31st August, 1990. Deputy Chairman
T.O'D./J.C.