Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD9123 Case Number: LCR13212 Section / Act: S67 Parties: IRISH TAXI OWNER'S CO-OPERATIVE - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Dispute arising from the request of a worker to transfer from the position of base controller to a telephonist position.
Recommendation:
5. The Court having considered all of the issues raised by the
parties considers that the Co-op management have an obligation to
their staff to ensure that they are not subjected to un-necessary
stress in carrying out their duties particularly those of
controller. To this end the Court considers management should
ensure that physical access to controllers is not available.
In the circumstances of the case the Court takes the view that
procedures acceptable to the controllers and to the drivers should
be agreed to deal with any complaints either party may have
regarding the operation of the service. In regard to the claim
for transfer the Court considers the Company has the prerogative
to fill vacancies on the basis of suitability, seniority and
length of service in more onerous positions.
The Court considers however that in the interests of developing
and improving the industrial relations climate, and the efficient
operation of the service full-time employees seeking transfer
should be considered in relation to vacancies that arise on a
sympathetic basis subject to the application of the above criteria
and the exigencies of the service. In the circumstances of this
case the Court recommends that the claimant if he should decide to
apply be given sympathetic consideration for any other vacancy for
telephonist that may arise.
It is noted the claimant has undertaken to make such arrangements
as are necessary on appointment to a telephonist post to assist in
the training of his replacement.
Division: MrMcGrath Mr Keogh Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD9123 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13212
THE LABOUR COURT
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 67, INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1946
PARTIES: IRISH TAXI OWNER'S CO-OPERATIVE
(Represented by the Federation of Irish Employers)
AND
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute arising from the request of a worker to transfer from
the position of base controller to a telephonist position.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company operates a taxi service and employs a full time
staff of 13 in the base control room, including 4 base controllers
and 5 telephonists (backed up by 7 part-time telephonists). When
a telephonist receives a call it is passed onto a base controller
who has the task of matching the caller's requirements to one of
the available taxis in the caller's area. The worker concerned
has been employed as a base controller with the Company for 12
years. In 1986, the worker became ill and in 1987, he received
medical advice that a change of duties would be beneficial. He
requested that should a vacancy arise in the shift telephonist
area that he would get first preference. No changes were made in
the worker's duties and following an incident in February, 1989
(details supplied to the Court) the Union raised the matter again
with the Company. No agreement could be reached on the worker's
transfer request and the matter was referred on 20th September,
1989 to the Conciliation Service of the Labour Court. A
conciliation conference was held on 12th December, 1989. The
outcome of the conference was confirmed in writing to both parties
by an Industrial Relations Officer (I.R.O.) as follows:-
"While the Company was not in a position to guarantee that
the worker would automatically get the next telephonist's
vacancy, it indicated that, in addition to suitability the
following factors - namely, seniority and length of service
in other more onerous positions - would also be most
relevant in making the appointment. In this regard, it was
noted that the worker is the most senior employee and has
worked as a controller for 11 years".
(The worker was named by the I.R.O.)
The Union claims that following the departure of a telephonist in
February, 1990 the Company had an opportunity to implement the
outcome of the December 1989 conciliation conference but failed to
do so. No agreement could be reached on the issue and both
parties agreed to refer the dispute to a full hearing of the
Labour Court for investigation and recommendation. The dispute
was referred to the Court on 8th January, 1991 and the Court
investigation took place on 29th January, 1991.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The base controller has the task of allocating work
between over 200 taxi drivers. Contact between the base
controller and the drivers is by radio and choices often have
to be made by the base controller between drivers. All
drivers can hear the base controller and it is not unknown
for a driver to believe he is being personally slighted or
overlooked. This leads to abuse and pressure from drivers on
base controllers and it makes the job very stressful. The
worker concerned has been a base controller for 12 years and
has had to endure such stressful situations. It is
reasonable that after a period of 12 years in a stressful job
that the worker should now seek a transfer to a less
demanding one.
2. Following the December 1989 conciliation conference the
Union was hopeful that the Company would be sympathetic
towards the worker in the event of a vacancy arising. The
Company had such an opportunity in February, 1990 following
the departure of a telephonist. It evaded the issue by
creating a new post of base manager whose duties incorporated
those of a telephonist.
3. When the worker initially joined the Company he was
employed as a telephonist for a short period. He still
covers for telephonists when the office is very busy. He
would have no problem with telephonist work and is willing to
train another as a base controller and continue in that
position for 6 months.
4. The Union is not seeking an automatic right of transfer
for the worker. The transfer request was initiated in 1987.
Other workers have changed their positions within the Company
in the past (details supplied to the Court). The worker is
unhappy in his present position and the Company should show
goodwill by granting his transfer request.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company is prepared to reiterate the commitment that
was made at the conciliation conference in 1989, but is not
in a position to do any more than this. While seniority and
length of service are obviously important considerations,
suitability is the key to a successful appointment. The
Company must reserve the right to appoint the best person for
the job. Since December, 1989 there has been no new
permanent telephonist appointment in the Company.
2. The Company must resist the establishment of any
precedent whereby there is an automatic entitlement to any
job within the organisation. The implications that this
would have for the internal running of the Company would be
impossible to sustain in the long run. The procedure that is
applied when a vacancy arises is that it is advertised both
internally and externally. Any internal applicant can apply
and will be considered for the job. All factors are taken
into consideration by Management before a decision on an
appointment is made.
3. The Company challenges the examples quoted by the Union,
of staff who changed positions within the Company in the
past.
4. The two jobs in question are completely different and
both require specific skills. In particular, the job of
telephonist requires all the people skills that are
consistent with the task of dealing with the public. There
is no logical reason why an employee should expect an
automatic transfer, from the position of controller to that
of telephonist.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court having considered all of the issues raised by the
parties considers that the Co-op management have an obligation to
their staff to ensure that they are not subjected to un-necessary
stress in carrying out their duties particularly those of
controller. To this end the Court considers management should
ensure that physical access to controllers is not available.
In the circumstances of the case the Court takes the view that
procedures acceptable to the controllers and to the drivers should
be agreed to deal with any complaints either party may have
regarding the operation of the service. In regard to the claim
for transfer the Court considers the Company has the prerogative
to fill vacancies on the basis of suitability, seniority and
length of service in more onerous positions.
The Court considers however that in the interests of developing
and improving the industrial relations climate, and the efficient
operation of the service full-time employees seeking transfer
should be considered in relation to vacancies that arise on a
sympathetic basis subject to the application of the above criteria
and the exigencies of the service. In the circumstances of this
case the Court recommends that the claimant if he should decide to
apply be given sympathetic consideration for any other vacancy for
telephonist that may arise.
It is noted the claimant has undertaken to make such arrangements
as are necessary on appointment to a telephonist post to assist in
the training of his replacement.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
12 March, 1991 Tom McGrath
A.S./M.O'C. _______________
Deputy Chairman