Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD92681 Case Number: LCR13961 Section / Act: S20(1) Parties: TELECOM EIREANN - and - A WORKER |
Shift rota.
Recommendation:
4. Section 20(1) of the 1969 Industrial Relations Act gives a
right to individuals or groups of employees to request the Court
to investigate a dispute subject to certain conditions. It also
places an obligation on the Court to investigate such a dispute
with reasonable priority.
In this case the employee concerned, notwithstanding that he is a
member of the Union holding representation rights with the
Company, used this provision of the Act to have his dispute
investigated.
The Court in the exercise of its duty considered the views of the
employee expressed in his oral and written submissions. The Court
also considered the views expressed in a statement and
correspondence from the Company and the comments of the employee
on the contents of the documentation from the Company.
The Company was not represented at the investigation.
It is the view of the Court that if industrial relations harmony
is to be developed and maintained, issues in dispute should have a
means of expression and resolution.
Having considered all the circumstances of this case and noting
the agreements which exist between the Company/Union and employees
for discussion and negotiation in dispute situations, the Court
takes the view that the issues in dispute would more appropriately
be dealt with in accordance with the procedures in these
agreements.
Given the above views the Court does not consider the individual
claimants claim should be conceded.
Division: MrMcGrath Mr McHenry Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD92681 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13961
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES: TELECOM EIREANN
and
A WORKER
SUBJECT:
1. Shift rota.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker concerned is employed by the Company as a Senior
Night Telephonist in the International Telephone Exchange.
Traditionally Night Telephonists cover the period 5 p.m. to 8 a.m.
but under the terms and conditions of their employment are liable
to attend for duty on a 7 day 24 hour basis.
In early, 1989 agreement was reached between management and Night
Telephonists on the introduction of a 7 day 24 hours shift rota
cover. The rota was staffed on a voluntary basis and attracted a
premium of 33 1/3%. The worker concerned applied and was accepted
for the new shift rota which commenced on 12th June, 1989.
Operators who applied for and were accepted on the rota were
given, in accordance with normal practice, a 3 month trial period
to decide if they wished to remain on the rota or return to their
previous duty. The exclusion from the rota of 55 female Day
Telephonists was the subject of a Labour Court investigation in
November, 1991. The 24 hour shift rota ceased with effect from
3rd May, 1992. The worker claims that his removal from the rota
was unfair, unjustified and contrary to agreement and custom and
practice. The Company rejected the claim.
A request by the worker to have the matter investigated by a
Rights Commissioner was rejected by the Company. The worker
referred the matter to the Labour Court under Section 20(1) of the
Industrial Relations Act, 1969 and agreed to be bound by the
Court's Recommendation. Prior to the hearing the Company informed
the Court that it would not be represented at the hearing. The
Court hearing took place on 4th February, 1993.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Union which represents the worker concerned declined
to use the machinery provided by the Labour Relations
Commission, perhaps because of the tradition of dealing with
such matters through the joint conciliation procedures. The
worker finds himself without the support of his Union but with
the backing of his colleagues in the telephone exchange.
2. The agreement in respect of the 24 hour shift rota was
understood by the workers concerned to be a permanent
arrangement that could only be changed by agreement.
3. The Company's action in arbitrarily terminating the 24
hour shift rota represents a radical departure from the normal
practice of negotiation and agreement.
4. There is ample evidence that the 24 hour shift rota was a
permanent arrangement that deployed staff more efficiently to
meet the traffic demand over the day and night periods. It
solved the problem of diminishing day staff in the
International Telephone Exchange.
5. The workers concerned were never told that the 24 shift
rota was temporary and were refused permission to leave the
rota.
6. The 24 hour shift rota operates successfully in other
exchanges.
7. The reasons given for terminating the rota are
unsustainable.
8. The rota was practically replaced by overtime and
restrictions on breaks and leave.
9. Extra day staff are being recruited to the exchange.
10. The removal of the worker concerned from the shift rota
represents a considerable reduction in income now and pension
entitelments in the future. The worker should be able to
expect a reasonably predictable pattern of work based on
agreement with the Company.
11. New duties are being forced on the existing Day
Telephonists which involve a significant worsening of
conditions and require Night Telephonists to attend for duty
in the period of 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. without payment of a shift
premium.
RECOMMENDATION:
4. Section 20(1) of the 1969 Industrial Relations Act gives a
right to individuals or groups of employees to request the Court
to investigate a dispute subject to certain conditions. It also
places an obligation on the Court to investigate such a dispute
with reasonable priority.
In this case the employee concerned, notwithstanding that he is a
member of the Union holding representation rights with the
Company, used this provision of the Act to have his dispute
investigated.
The Court in the exercise of its duty considered the views of the
employee expressed in his oral and written submissions. The Court
also considered the views expressed in a statement and
correspondence from the Company and the comments of the employee
on the contents of the documentation from the Company.
The Company was not represented at the investigation.
It is the view of the Court that if industrial relations harmony
is to be developed and maintained, issues in dispute should have a
means of expression and resolution.
Having considered all the circumstances of this case and noting
the agreements which exist between the Company/Union and employees
for discussion and negotiation in dispute situations, the Court
takes the view that the issues in dispute would more appropriately
be dealt with in accordance with the procedures in these
agreements.
Given the above views the Court does not consider the individual
claimants claim should be conceded.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Tom McGrath
___________________
22nd February, 1993. Deputy Chairman
F.B./J.C.
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Fran Brennan, Court Secretary.