Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD94410 Case Number: LCR14629 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: BANK OF IRELAND - and - A WORKER;SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Re-location of a bank porter.
Recommendation:
The Court, having considered all of the issues raised by the
parties in their oral and written submissions, finds that,
contrary to the committments given by the Bank in their letter of
14th October, 1993, little effort was made to find an appropriate
alternative location which would accommodate the personal
preferences of the claimant.
In the circumstances, it is the view of the Court that the
employee should be offered the first available post at 2, College
Green or, alternatively, any other post acceptable to him.
In the meantime, the employee should accept the post in James
Street. Should a suitable location not be agreed by March, 1995,
the parties should review the situation.
The Court so recommends.
Division: Mr McGrath Mr Brennan Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD94410 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14629
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES:
BANK OF IRELAND
AND
A WORKER
(REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION)
SUBJECT:
1. Re-location of a bank porter.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker has been employed by the Bank, as a porter in its
Thomas Street Branch, since March, 1980. The Branch closed
on 14th February, 1994. The worker was informed by the Bank
that he was to take up a vacant post the in James Street
Branch from 28th March, 1994.
On 24th March, 1994, the Union informed the Bank that the
worker would not be reporting to James Street. The Union
claims that it was understood that the worker would be
re-located to the Bank's 2, College Green Branch, where a
number of vacancies were to be filled. The dispute was
referred to the Labour Relations Commission and a
conciliation conference took place on 20th May, 1994.
Agreement could not be reached at the conference.
Following the conciliation conference a vacancy arose in the
Ormond Quay Branch. The worker was prepared to accept this
but was not agreeable to do cleaning duties which were part
of the job description. The Bank offered to have the
cleaning duties done by a contract cleaner but this was
unacceptable to the Union. The Bank withdrew its offer. The
dispute was referred to the Labour Court on 9th August, 1994.
A Labour Court hearing took place on 27th October, 1994, (the
earliest date suitable to the parties).
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The worker has an excellent record during his fourteen
years with the Bank. He wished to be re-located in the
College Green Branch, as it offered regular overtime. A
number of the vacancies in the College Green Branch were
filled by temporary employees. One post was filled by a
worker from outside the Bank, with no previous
experience. The worker, with his fourteen years
experience, should have been offered one of the
positions.
2. A number of local meetings, between the Union and the
Bank, were held to discuss the vacancies at 2 College
Green. The Union indicated that the worker was
interested in the position. It was understood that he
would be facilitated. A letter from the Bank, dated
14th October, 1994, stated that "... his personal
preferences will be accommodated in as far as possible
in this respect." At the final meeting in March, 1994,
the Bank stated that the worker was to be sent to the
James Street Branch.
BANK'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. It was always the Bank's intention to re-locate the
worker to the James Street Branch. The reason for the
delay in informing him was that the porter in James
Street was terminally ill. The Bank did not wish to
appear insensitive by filling the vacancy at such a
time. Following the man's death, the worker was
informed that he was to fill the post in James Street.
2. The vacant positions in 2, College Green were advertised
by a job vacancy notice. The worker concerned did not
apply for the position.
3. The meetings between the Bank and Union were concerned
with the restructuring of positions at 2, College Green.
No understanding was given in regards re-locating the
worker to this Branch.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court, having considered all of the issues raised by the
parties in their oral and written submissions, finds that,
contrary to the committments given by the Bank in their letter of
14th October, 1993, little effort was made to find an appropriate
alternative location which would accommodate the personal
preferences of the claimant.
In the circumstances, it is the view of the Court that the
employee should be offered the first available post at 2, College
Green or, alternatively, any other post acceptable to him.
In the meantime, the employee should accept the post in James
Street. Should a suitable location not be agreed by March, 1995,
the parties should review the situation.
The Court so recommends.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
15th December, 1994 Tom McGrath
C.O'N./D.T. _______________
Deputy Chairman
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Ciaran O'Neill, Court Secretary.