Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD92106 Case Number: LCR13615 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: IARNROD EIREANN - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Dispute concerning the re-deployment of a worker.
Recommendation:
5. The Court having considered all of the views of the parties
expressed in their oral and written submissions considers
(i) that the worker concernerd should accept redeployment as
proposed by the Company to the Grade of Technical
Assistant
(ii) that he should be paid an agreed sum in respect of loss
of earnings and relocation expenses
(iii) that he be given every opportunity to achieve
engineering degree status and on achievement of his
qualifications be appointed as an engineer at a salary
point commensurate with the length of service he has
rendered to the Company.
The Court so recommends.
Division: MrMcGrath Mr Brennan Mr Devine
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD92106 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13615
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES: IARNROD EIREANN
and
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning the re-deployment of a worker.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker concerned was employed as chief engineer on the
Galway/Aran Ferry Service from February, 1983 to March, 1991 when
the Company ceased to operate the service. Thirteen workers (3
ships officers, including the worker concerned, and 10 other
grades) had their employment terminated and were offered statutory
redundancy payments by the Company. The Union rejected the offer
and following an industrial dispute and numerous conciliation
conferences held under the auspices of the Labour Relations
Commission the workers (except the worker concerned) accepted
enhanced redundancy terms (details supplied to the Court). The
worker sought redeployment to an appropriate engineering grade.
Management offered him a post as technical assistant at the
Inchicore works. The Union rejected the offer. The issue was
referred to the Labour Relations Commission in May, 1991. A
conciliation conference was held on the 28th August, 1991 but no
agreement was reached. The dispute was referred to the Labour
Court by the Labour Relations Commission on the 13th February,
1992. The Court investigated the dispute on the 6th March, 1992.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The post of technical assistant is not acceptable to the
worker. It is inappropriate in terms of pay and grading
taking into account his qualifications. He is a qualified
marine engineer-first class. This is the highest
qualification in the field of practising engineers. The
Company has never accepted this qualification as being the
equivalent to degree holders in the engineering field. The
worker's qualification is accepted in numerous other
employments (details supplied to the Court). The Company has
never mentioned that posts are not available, but have simply
refused to discuss the matter based solely on the worker's
qualifications.
2. The post of technical assistant (which is rejected by the
Union) has a salary scale, the maximum of which is £14,654.
The worker concerned was earning in the region of £25,000 per
year. While accepting that this figure included guaranteed
overtime, the ferry system could not operate in any other
fashion. It should be noted that the Company had used the
average rates of pay in previous disputes as an argument
against increases in basic pay.
3. The sale of the Company's ferry service can be directly
compared to the sale of the Hospitals Joint Services Board to
a private sector Company, following a tendering procedure.
All the officers involved were re-deployed by the Department
of Health to posts within the Department at the same grade
with no loss of earnings. The Company could afford the same
opportunity to the worker concerned. It must deploy him to an
appropriate grade with a salary equivalent to his previous
average earnings. The worker would prefer a post in Galway
but is willing to move to Dublin to take up a suitable post.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The worker concerned declined to accept the severance
package which had been accepted by other workers. In
accordance with Company policy of offering redeployment where
possible, the worker was offered the post of technical
assistant at a salary of £12,741. His previous basic salary
as ships engineer was £12,508 p.a. Following conciliation
talks the Company offered to place the worker on the maximum
point of the technical assistant scale - £14,654. This offer
was rejected by the Union.
2. The Company cannot redeploy the worker to the grade of
engineer as the Company's educational requirement is a
University degree and the posts are filled by engineering
graduates. This qualification is not held by the worker
concerned. He could, if he wished, obtain the qualification
while working as a technical assistant and would be afforded
every assistance in obtaining the degree.
3. The employment of the worker concerned was terminated as a
result of a government decision to transfer operation of the
Galway/Aran service to another Company. The worker declined
to accept the enhanced severance terms which were accepted by
other workers. He rejected an offer of redeployment which
included a higher basic rate of pay than that enjoyed by him
in his previous position, together with compensation payments.
This offer is still available. The Company has acted in a
fair and reasonable manner in presenting the worker with
alternative options arising from circumstances beyond its
control.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court having considered all of the views of the parties
expressed in their oral and written submissions considers
(i) that the worker concernerd should accept redeployment as
proposed by the Company to the Grade of Technical
Assistant
(ii) that he should be paid an agreed sum in respect of loss
of earnings and relocation expenses
(iii) that he be given every opportunity to achieve
engineering degree status and on achievement of his
qualifications be appointed as an engineer at a salary
point commensurate with the length of service he has
rendered to the Company.
The Court so recommends.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Tom McGrath
___________________________
8th April, 1992. Deputy Chairman
T.O'D./J.C.
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Tom O'Dea, Court Secretary.