Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD92367 Case Number: LCR13697 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: DATA PRODUCTS - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Dispute concerning the transfer of staff within the Company.
Recommendation:
5. The Court having considered the submissions from the parties
recommends as follows:
1. The Union agree to the flexibility of staff as required
by the Company.
2. Permanent staff in Printing who transfer to Power Tools
should retain an option to return to the Printing area
for a period of 3 years as vacancies occur in that
area.
3. The parties immediately enter into negotiations on a
new formal agreement with regard to the employment of
temporary staff.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Keogh Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD92367 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13697
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES: DATA PRODUCTS
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATION OF IRISH EMPLOYERS)
and
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning the transfer of staff within the Company.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company is involved mainly in the assembly and
distribution of printers and printer supplies. It has a permanent
workforce of approximately 350 and its operations are divided into
3 main divisions i.e. approximately 250 permanent workers in the
printer assembly division, 84 in the printer supplies division,
and 18 in the power tools division plus 9 temporary employees.
The Company was taken over by Hitachi in 1990 and the new parent
company subsequently decided that the power tools division should
be set up. The printer side of the business has declined in
recent years and the Company sees the power tools division as an
area for growth. The Company claims that it requires the
flexibility to transfer staff within the plant between the three
divisions. In this instance it requires to move permanent workers
in the printer assembly division to the power tools division and
replace them with temporary staff from the power tools division.
The Union claims that this is a departure from the well
established practice in the Company as staff are not transferable
between divisions except where there is a lack of work in their
own division. Staff retain the right to return to their original
division when vacancies occur. The Union claims that the status
quo should be maintained. No agreement was reached at local level
discussions and the dispute was referred on 9th June, 1992 to the
Labour Relations Commission. Conciliation conferences were held
on 17th June and 23rd June 1992 at which no agreement was reached
and the dispute was referred on 26th June, 1992 to the Labour
Court in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations
Act, 1990. It was agreed at the conciliation conference that the
status quo would be maintained pending investigation and
recommendation by the Labour Court. The Court investigated the
dispute on 29th June, 1992 and issued a recommendation by letter
on 1st July, 1992.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. Staff in the Company have never been transferable
between divisions except in circumstances where there was
insufficient work in their own division. In such
circumstances staff transferred to other divisions where work
was available as an alternative to redundancy. They returned
to their original division as vacancies arose. The only
other facility for transfer between divisions was by
competition for vacancies. These procedures are well
established and were rigidly maintained by the Company.
2. The workers in the printer assembly division should
retain their positions until the level of work available
decreases. They should then transfer to the power tools
division on a gradual basis. In the event of an upturn in
the volume of work in the printer assembly division, or in
the event of a permanent vacancy arising, those transferred
to the power tools division should retain the right to return
to their original division in accordance with well
established practice.
3. An agreement exists between the Union and Company in
regard to the employment of temporary staff. In the light of
recent developments there is a need to review the procedures
for the use of temporary staff.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company needs the flexibility to move staff within
the plant between the three main divisions. Where work
declines in one area it needs to move staff to areas where
full-time working can be maintained. The printer business
has declined in recent years and the Company now sees power
tools as the potential growth area. Permanent jobs in the
printer division cannot be sustained at the present level
while the Company is forced to use temporary workers in the
power tools division. To redress a situation where the
growth business is 50% staffed by temporary workers the
Company must transfer permanent staff from the printer
division to the power tools division.
2. The Company needs to have a stable workforce in the
power tools division. The use of temporary staff in this
division is unsatisfactory due to the high staff turnover and
training costs involved. It is the Company's plan to use
temporary staff as per normal practice e.g. to cover
absences, holidays etc. The Company does not intend to
casualise the workforce.
3. During negotiations at the conciliation conferences the
the Company proposed that permanent staff in the printers
division who transferred to the power tools division would
retain an option to return to the printers division if
vacancies arise. This option is only available for a period
of one year.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court having considered the submissions from the parties
recommends as follows:
1. The Union agree to the flexibility of staff as required
by the Company.
2. Permanent staff in Printing who transfer to Power Tools
should retain an option to return to the Printing area
for a period of 3 years as vacancies occur in that
area.
3. The parties immediately enter into negotiations on a
new formal agreement with regard to the employment of
temporary staff.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
14th July, 1992 Evelyn Owens
A.S./M.H. ------------------------
Deputy Chairman.
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Alfie Smith, Court Secretary.