Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD9387 Case Number: LCR14026 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: UNIVERSITY OF LIMERICK - and - MANUFACTURING SCIENCE FINANCE |
Dispute concerning the re-deployment of a worker.
Recommendation:
5. On the basis of the submissions made by the parties at the
hearing, it is clear from the history of the case that the duties
formerly carried out by the worker are now being carried out by a
lower grade, in the post-1991 Act situation. It also seems clear
to the Court that the worker was a member of the Service staff and
acted as such, particularly at weekends, during his employment
with Thomond College.
In particular having regard to the University's offer to continue
to make the same flexibility available to him to assist him in
advancing his career, the Court does not consider his redeployment
from the workshops to be unfair and does not therefore recommend
concession of the Union's claim.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr Brennan Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD9387 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14026
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES: UNIVERSITY OF LIMERICK
and
MANUFACTURING SCIENCE FINANCE
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning the re-deployment of a worker.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker was employed in the services department of Thomond
College in 1983 and his duties included various tasks in the
woodwork and metalwork laboratories. Following the assimilation
of the college into the University of Limerick in July, 1991
(University of Limerick Act, 1991), the worker was assigned to
portering duties. He has objected to this change of duties, and
sought re-assignment to laboratory-duties. The worker had
embarked on a City and Guild course of studies, with the support
of the College, prior to the change of his duties. His
participation in the course was made possible only because his
duties were relevant to the course. His current duties do not
qualify him to continue the course. The University contends that
he was originally employed as a service-attendant, and that his
new duties are appropriate to his grade.
The dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commission and a
conciliation conference was held on the 12th of June, 1992, at
which agreement was not reached.
The dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 3rd of
February, 1993 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial
Relations Act, 1990.
The Court investigated the dispute, in Limerick, on the 9th of
March, 1993.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The worker was, for all practical purposes, a member of
the workshop staff in Thomond College. His grading as a
member of the services staff was an administrative convenience
for the employer, and did not affect his conditions of
employment.
2. The worker had an expectation of career progression which
had been encouraged by his employer and which required him to
remain in the workshop environment.
3. The term 'Service Staff' refers to porter, grounds and
general grades of staff. The worker was not involved in these
areas. He was based in the metal-working area, with
additional duties in the woodworking workshop.
UNIVERSITY'S ARGUMENTS:
5. 1. The worker's initial assignment was to provide a
messenger/porter/security function. He provided services
associated with his grade in the workshop area. At weekends
he regularly worked overtime on the service staff roster in
the Physical Education Building. Following the integration of
Thomond College into the University of Limerick, the worker's
duties were carried out by an employees in the lower grade of
Laboratory Attendant.
2. The worker's contention that his re-deployment has
lessened his chances of obtaining technical qualifications is
unreasonable. Supervised workshop facilities are available
should he wish to avail of them.
3. Concession of the claim would have a serious knock-on
effect for the University because it calls into question
management's prerogative to deploy staff as it sees fit.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. On the basis of the submissions made by the parties at the
hearing, it is clear from the history of the case that the duties
formerly carried out by the worker are now being carried out by a
lower grade, in the post-1991 Act situation. It also seems clear
to the Court that the worker was a member of the Service staff and
acted as such, particularly at weekends, during his employment
with Thomond College.
In particular having regard to the University's offer to continue
to make the same flexibility available to him to assist him in
advancing his career, the Court does not consider his redeployment
from the workshops to be unfair and does not therefore recommend
concession of the Union's claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
_____________________
30th March, 1993. Deputy Chairman
M.K./J.C.
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Michael Keegan, Court Secretary.