Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD93600 Case Number: LCR14255 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: OFFICE OF PUBLIC WORKS - and - TECHNICAL ENGINEERING AND ELECTRICAL UNION;SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Dispute concerning the redundancy/redeployment of 4 workers.
Recommendation:
Having considered the submissions from the parties, the Court is
of the view that the Office of Public Works' proposals are not
unreasonable in the circumstances and should be accepted by the
Union subject to the Office of Public Works agreeing to pay
compensation for loss of overtime if it arises and where it has
not already been paid.
The Court so recommends.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Brennan Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD93600 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14255
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES: OFFICE OF PUBLIC WORKS
AND
TECHNICAL ENGINEERING AND ELECTRICAL UNION
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning the redundancy/redeployment of 4 workers.
BACKGROUND:
2. 1. The Office of Public Works (OPW), at the Central Heating
Station (CHS) at Leinster House employs a stoker,
stoker-driver and 2 general operatives. The boilers were
converted to natural gas in 1988 and since then the station
has been largely converted to automatic working.
2. The OPW has decided that the changes have obviated the
need for 3 of the workers altogether with the remaining
worker required on a part-time basis only.
3. The OPW proposes to redeploy 3 of the workers to its
central depot at Lad lane and to allocate other duties to the
remaining stoker.The Unions objected to the redeployment and
maintained, that, if a need for redeployment was proved, the
workers, in line with precedent, should be redeployed to
general duties in the Leinster House area.
4. The dispute was referred to the Labour Relations
Commission and a conciliation conference was held on 26th
October, 1993. No progress was possible and the dispute was
referred to the Labour Court on 27th October, 1993, under
Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A
Labour Court investigation took place on 8th November, 1993.
UNIONS' ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Union is not satisfied that a case for
redundancy/redeployment exists at the Central Heating
Station. The OPW has not provided any evidence of a decrease
in workload. The introduction of new technology could not
possibly replace a 5-man operation with just one man.
2. If the OPW with the assistance of an independent third
party, is able to prove that a case for redeployment exists,
then the workers should be redeployed to the Leinster House
workforce. The workers have long service and are the most
senior workers in the area. The workers have lost
considerable overtime earnings as a result of the change-over
to gas, for which they will have to be conpensated. They
should not be forced to move outside the area to which they
were appointed.
OFFICE OF PUBLIC WORKS' ARGUMENTS
4. 1. The OPW is satisfied that there is a need for only one
worker to meet work requirements in the area. The OPW has a
legal obligation to ensure that certain tasks are carried out
(details supplied) and these tasks can be carried out by the
remaining worker.
2. Under the terms of a recent Agreement with the workers
(details supplied) the OPW can assign the workers to any
location in Dublin, subject only to payment of the
appropriate travel allowance. The jobs which the workers
have performed no longer exist. A redundancy situation
exists which the OPW is obliged to resolve by the use of
redeployment. No vacancies exist in the Leinster House
establishment and the workers must be transferred to the
depot at Lad Lane.
RECOMMENDATION:
Having considered the submissions from the parties, the Court is
of the view that the Office of Public Works' proposals are not
unreasonable in the circumstances and should be accepted by the
Union subject to the Office of Public Works agreeing to pay
compensation for loss of overtime if it arises and where it has
not already been paid.
The Court so recommends.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
23rd November, 1993 Evelyn Owens
J.F./A.L. _________________
Deputy Chairman
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should by addressed to
Mr. Jerome Forde, Court Secretary.