Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD92157 Case Number: AD92170 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: BORD NA MONA - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION;MANUFACTURING SCIENCE FINANCE |
Appeal by the Unions against Rights Commissioner's recommendation B.C. 262/91.
Recommendation:
5. The Court has fully considered the oral and written
submissions of the parties and the Rights Commissioner's
recommendation. In all the circumstances the Court considers the
terms and conditions of the employees transferred from the Dublin
Head Office should be honoured.
Accordingly, the Court upholds the appeal by the Unions that the
flexi-time should be restored to those employees who had
transferred from Dublin to the Boora offices.
In making the above decision the Court is conscious of the fact
that the exigencies of the services provided at the Boora office
may require a different pattern of attendance within a flexitime
arrangement. In this regard the Court suggests to the parties
that they negotiate an arrangement which would meet the
requirements of the Company whilst recognising the intent of the
Court's decision above.
The Court so decides.
Division: MrMcGrath Mr Collins Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD92157 APPEAL DECISION NO. AD17092
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES: BORD NA MONA
and
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
MANUFACTURING SCIENCE FINANCE
SUBJECT:
1. Appeal by the Unions against Rights Commissioner's
recommendation B.C. 262/91.
BACKGROUND:
2. In 1990 the Bord took a decision to decentralise and this
resulted in the establishment of 3 Divisional Offices catering for
5 Production Works in the peat energy division. One of the
Divisional Offices is located at Boora near Tullamore. Twenty
five workers transferred there from Dublin Head Office where
flexi-time was in operation. Subsequently the Unions submitted a
claim for the introduction of flexi-time at the Divisional Office.
Management rejected the claim. The issue was referred to a Rights
Commissioner for investigation and recommendation. On the 6th
February, 1992 the Rights Commissioner issued his recommendation
as follows:
"In the light of the above I recommend that the parties sit
down together to negotiate a lump sum monetary compensation
to be paid to the staff who have transferred and that in the
discussions on this lump sum compensation due account be
taken of (a) whether such staff ever enjoyed flexi-time and
(b) the length of time which each member of the designated
staff had in fact enjoyed flexi-time in Dublin.
In the event of these discussions not producing an agreed
solution within one month from the date of receipt of this
recommendation the parties may then refer the matter back to
me for a distinct and tangible recommendation".
On the 11th March, 1992 the Unions appealed the recommendation to
the Labour Court under Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations
Act, 1969. The Court heard the appeal on the 5th June, 1992.
UNIONS' ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Unions are seeking the application of flexi-time for
the workers concerned in the Boora office which was previously
enjoyed by them at Head Office in Dublin. The Unions reject
the Rights Commissioner's recommendation because they are
claiming the restoration of flexi-time and not compensation
for its loss. Flexi-time was conceded by the Bord to Head
Office Staff in Dublin. Under the decentralisation plan staff
were relocated to various divisional offices including Boora.
It was one of the central agreements negotiated at the time of
this relocation that the existing conditions of staff would
not be changed due to the relocation. This fact has been
acknowledged by Management and by the Rights Commissioner in
his findings.
2. Staff in Dublin continue to enjoy flexi-time as do staff
who transferred to Newbridge. Staff who moved to the other
Divisional Head Office in Portlaoise renegotiated a working
time package which involved changes in working hours -
flexi-time and overtime. The changes were negotiated by
mutual agreement. This could also be done at the Boora works.
MANAGEMENT'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The chief function of the Divisional Office is to provide
an extensive back up service to the five works in areas such
as mechanical and civil engineering, purchase of capital
equipment, spares, finance and human resources. At works
level the vast majority of administrative staff work from 8.45
a.m. to 4.30 p.m. It is vital, therefore, that the divisional
staff be in attendance during these works office hours. Staff
at the divisional office also have substantial contact with
the public and commercial organisations.
2. Flexi-time was introduced at Head Office in Dublin to
facilitate staff in relation to getting to and from work in
rush hour traffic and also in giving easy accessibility to
shops, restaurants, etc.. There is not the same requirement
at the present rural location. Management is flexible in the
approach to meeting individual requirements for time off on
the occasion when need arises. Most developments in
flexi-time working have taken place in Dublin and its
extension to works locations was overwhelmingly rejected by
staff at those locations following its introduction at Head
Office.
DECISION:
5. The Court has fully considered the oral and written
submissions of the parties and the Rights Commissioner's
recommendation. In all the circumstances the Court considers the
terms and conditions of the employees transferred from the Dublin
Head Office should be honoured.
Accordingly, the Court upholds the appeal by the Unions that the
flexi-time should be restored to those employees who had
transferred from Dublin to the Boora offices.
In making the above decision the Court is conscious of the fact
that the exigencies of the services provided at the Boora office
may require a different pattern of attendance within a flexitime
arrangement. In this regard the Court suggests to the parties
that they negotiate an arrangement which would meet the
requirements of the Company whilst recognising the intent of the
Court's decision above.
The Court so decides.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Tom McGrath
_______________________
29th June, 1992. Deputy Chairman
T.O'D./J.C.