Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD90565 Case Number: AD9054 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: ULSTER BANK LIMITED - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Appeal by the Union of Rights Commissioner's Recommendation No. ST157/90 concerning a workers loss of position as a driver/steward.
Recommendation:
6. Having had regard to all the circumstances of this case the
Court does not find grounds to alter the Rights Commissioners
recommendation. The Court so decides.
Division: CHAIRMAN Mr Keogh Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD90565 APPEAL DECISION NO.AD5490
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 13(9)
PARTIES: ULSTER BANK LIMITED
and
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Appeal by the Union of Rights Commissioner's Recommendation
No. ST157/90 concerning a workers loss of position as a
driver/steward.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker concerned commenced employment with the Bank in
March, 1979. For the first three years of his employment he
worked as driver/steward for the Area Director. In 1982, the
worker concerned was appointed as the then Chairman's
driver/steward. He operated out of the Bank's College Green
Office. That Chairman was due to retire in April, 1989, but was
given an extension until the end of December, 1989. Meanwhile in
April, 1989, a new position of Regional Director was created. A
new driver/steward was appointed to drive the Regional Director.
Following the appointment of the new driver/steward, the worker
concerned expressed his disappointment that he had not been
appointed to the new position. The Bank pointed out that he was
not available to be considered for the position because his
commitment as driver/steward to the Chairman was due to continue
until the end of December, 1989. The worker concerned approached
the Personnel Department in October, 1989, and was advised that
the only position available was as a van driver in the Stationery
Department. This position was due to become available on 1st
January, 1990, when the existing van driver retired. He
subsequently applied for this position and was successful.
2. On 5th December, 1989, the worker informed the Company that he
wished to withdraw his application for the van driver position and
wished instead to be reinstated in his position as driver/steward
in the Southern Regional office. He was informed that this was
not possible as the new Chairman was based in Belfast. The Bank
in an effort to resolve the matter offered him the position of
steward with part-time driving duties for two other executives
based in the College Green Office. The worker declined this offer
and advised that he was accepting the van driver post. At a
further meeting in February, 1990, in an attempt to resolve the
issue the Bank offered the worker a lump-sum of #2,000 in
compensation for any loss of overtime he might suffer from the
loss of his post as the Chairman's driver/steward. This offer was
rejected and the matter was referred to a Rights commissioner for
investigation and recommendation. On 16th August, 1990, the
Rights Commissioner issued the following Recommendation -
The claimant of his own volition decided to apply for and was
given the job of van driver. The Bank has the right to
deploy staff in a reasonable manner. It has not acted
unfairly in this case. The claimant appears to have dealt
with his future on a personal one to one basis with the last
chairman. This exercise is the cause of his present
difficulties. He should have involved his Union in such a
critical exercise but he chose not to do so. Once the
decision to appoint another Steward/Driver was taken in April
1989 there was no place left for the claimant as
traditionally the chairman rotates between Dublin and Belfast
and he should have been aware of this in the position be
held. The Union delegates cannot now be expected to redress
that which is impossible to redress.
The bank has offered #2,000 compensation for all losses. The
Bank has admitted such losses and the fact that
communications could have been better in he initial stages, I
therefore recommend that the compensation be increased to
#3,000 in full and final settlement of all his claims".
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. Custom and practice in the Bank dictates that jobs are
advertised internally. This did not happen with the
driver/steward post filled in April, 1989. This is in breach
of agreement clearly established.
2. Other members of staff reverted back to their original
positions when the former Chairman retired. The Union
believes that the appointment made in April, 1990 could have
been temporarily filled pending the retirement of the former
Chairman, thereby allowing the worker concerned to revert
back. Why was this man treated less favourably than other
member of staff who worked closely with the former Chairman?
Why was the worker misled by the former Chairman who advised
him that his position was secure?
3. The worker feels that he has been treated unfairly. No
genuine effort has been made by the Bank to resolve this
difficult and complicated position. It appears that because
he carried out his job well, he is being penalised through the
loss of his job.
4. 4. The worker concerned only took up the position of van
driver out of frustration due to the lack of assistance he was
receiving from the Bank. The van driving position is
physically demanding, often involving the carrying of
deliveries up several flights of stairs. He is responsible
for delivering stationery throughout the country. This has
disrupted, severely, his social and domestic life. The Union
believe that he should be restored to his original position of
driver/steward.
BANK'S ARGUMENTS:
5. 1. The worker's former position as driver/steward to the
former Chairman no longer exists. He was unavailable for
consideration for the position of driver/steward filled in
April, 1989, owing to his commitments to the former Chairman.
This position was filled by one of his colleagues.
2. When he initially withdrew his application for the van
driver post, every effort was made to offer him a comparable
post, vis, part-time driver/steward to two other executives.
He declined this position and re-accepted the van driver
position, which he had originally applied for of his own
volition.
3. The worker's Conditions of Employment as per his letter
of appointment date 22nd March, 1979, confirm that he is
subject to transfer.
4. The Bank, cognizant of the fact that the worker would
suffer a loss of overtime earnings in his new position, made
an offer of #2,000 compensation.
DECISION:
6. Having had regard to all the circumstances of this case the
Court does not find grounds to alter the Rights Commissioners
recommendation. The Court so decides.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Heffernan
3rd December, 1990 ---------------
B O'N/U.S. Chairman