Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD9486 Case Number: LCR14350 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: NORTHERN TELECOM (IRELAND) LIMITED - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Selection Criteria for redeployment.
Recommendation:
It is clear to the Court that the Union do not dispute in any way
the Company's responsibility and right to manage. The dispute lies
within the context of how that right is exercised and accepted by
the employees as fair.
The Court accepts the natural concern and perhaps in some
instances resentment of senior staff if they consider a more
junior person is receiving or is perceived to receive more
favourable treatment with regard to re-deployment. Nevertheless
the Court cannot agree with the Union proposal in its entirety.
The Court accordingly recommends that in exercising their rights
to redepoly employees as required by the operation of the business
the Company recognise the Union's concerns with regard to service
and give that factor adequate recognition in making their
selections.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Keogh Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD9486 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14350
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES:
NORTHERN TELECOM (IRELAND) LIMITED
AND
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Selection Criteria for redeployment.
BACKGROUND:
2. 1. Northern Telecom (Ireland) Ltd. is part of Northern
Telecom Ltd. It manufactures a wide range of
telecommunications products. The Company is based in Galway
and employs 450 workers. The dispute involves approximately
180 workers.
2. In March 1993, following the discontinuance of the
"harmony" and "utility" production lines 12 workers were
moved from day to evening shift work. They were selected by
Management on a "company needs" basis. The Union claimed
that the workers should have been selected on a seniority
basis and that this criterion must be the main determinant in
cases of redeployment/transfer in the plant. Management
rejected the Union's claim.
3. The dispute was referred to the Labour Relations
Commission. Conciliation conferences were held on the 13th
July and 28th October, 1993. As no agreement was reached the
dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 4th February,
1994. The Court investigated the dispute on the 17th
February, 1994.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Union is not challenging the Company's right to
manage in a fair and competent manner. However, it disputes
the Company's selection criteria when redeploying workers.
To ignore "seniority" and rely solely on "business need" is
unfair and leads to unrest and demotivation among the
workforce. The Company has transferred a worker with 15
years service from day to evening work leaving a colleague
with 2 years service on days.
2. The workers concerned have been unfairly treated. The
Company knew for some time that the production lines were
being discontinued. It made no proper plans to redeploy
workers, taking their seniority into account. The Company
must implement long-standing procedures in relation to
redeployment/transfers which determine seniority rather than
"business needs" as the main factor for redeployment. Other
criteria that Management may wish to use should be fair,
objective and subject to agreed procedures in the event of
disagreement.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company makes every effort to facilitate employees
in relation to working shift/days. Some workers were
returned to day shifts as they became available. All the
workers involved were successfully retrained and some
willingly remain on shift work.
2. The Company/Union agreement provides that Management
"has the sole and exclusive right to manage its business".
The Company must be free to exercise its right to
transfer/redeploy workers on a "business needs" basis.
Flexibility is essential in the competitive business in which
the Company operates. The Company has engaged in a world
wide restructuring programme. Numerous plants have closed
and 10% of the workforce were laid-off. None of these cuts
have been extended to the Galway plant.
3. The Company pays excellent wages and its pay rates are
more favourable than other employments in the region. It has
paid all phases of P.E.S.P., including the special bargaining
3% increase. A 20% shift premium is paid for evening shift.
This pay rate is a concession because of the flexible
arrangements which the workers have entered into. The
requirement to work shifts is specifically detailed as part
of workers conditions of employment. The Company is
presently developing proposals for shift rotation which will
lead to a more equitable distribution of shift work.
RECOMMENDATION:
It is clear to the Court that the Union do not dispute in any way
the Company's responsibility and right to manage. The dispute lies
within the context of how that right is exercised and accepted by
the employees as fair.
The Court accepts the natural concern and perhaps in some
instances resentment of senior staff if they consider a more
junior person is receiving or is perceived to receive more
favourable treatment with regard to re-deployment. Nevertheless
the Court cannot agree with the Union proposal in its entirety.
The Court accordingly recommends that in exercising their rights
to redepoly employees as required by the operation of the business
the Company recognise the Union's concerns with regard to service
and give that factor adequate recognition in making their
selections.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
28th February, 1994 Evelyn Owens
T.O.D./M.M. _______________
Deputy Chairman
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Tom O'Dea, Court Secretary.