Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD95172 Case Number: LCR14734 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: HALLMARK CARDS (IRELAND) LIMITED (THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS CONFEDERATION) - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Dispute concerning the impact of a proposed redeployment on promotional opportunities.
Recommendation:
The Court, having considered the submissions of the parties
together with the responses made during the hearing, takes the
view that the transfer of the two workers into the grade 1 jobs
comes within the scope of the current Company/Union Procedural
Agreement and recommends that the Union accepts the transfer of
the two workers with immediate effect.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Keogh Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD95172 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14734
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES:
HALLMARK CARDS (IRELAND) LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS CONFEDERATION)
AND
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning the impact of a proposed redeployment on
promotional opportunities.
BACKGROUND:
2. 1. The Company is a subsidiary of an American company and
employs 230 workers in the manufacture of greeting
cards. It has been established in Ireland since 1959
and it exports all its products to the United Kingdom
and Europe.
2. At present the Company has 34 workers on lay-off and, in
the last 7 months, it has declared 44 workers
redundant (voluntary). As part of its cost cutting
measures, the Company reached agreement with the Union
to subcontract the cleaning of the Company's premises.
The 4 full-time and 1 part-time cleaners were
re-deployed to various other areas of the Company.
3. On 2nd November, 1994, the Company and the local Union
representatives agreed that 2 cleaners would be
transferred to grade 1 positions in the scrap
department. The transfer was made on the basis that
their pay would be 'redcircled' and that there would be
no repercussive claims (details supplied). The workers'
pay is higher than the normal grade 1 pay.
4. On 21st November, the Union informed the Company that
the workers in the scrap department had objected to the
redeployment of the cleaners to grade 1 positions as it
blocked promotional opportunities for the existing
workers in lower grades. The Company agreed to assign
the workers to grade 4 work on a temporary basis and the
dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commission.
5. A conciliation conference took place on 18th January,
1995. The Company claimed that it was entitled to
re-deploy the workers under the terms of Clause 13 of
the Company/Union Procedural Agreement. The Union
argued that the workers were not production workers and,
therefore, were not covered by the terms of Clause 13.
It was not possible for the parties to negotiate a
settlement of the dispute. Under the terms of Section
26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990, it was
referred to the Labour Court on 27th February, 1995.
The Court investigated the dispute on 6th March, 1995.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Union's agreement with the Company on redeployment
relates only to production workers within the current
grading structure (1-4). The 2 cleaners have never been
production workers. They hold a separately negotiated
composite rate which is higher than the production
workers' rates.
2. The Company cannot unilaterally impose a change in the
production workers' conditions of employment without
agreement. There is no precedent for the cleaners
taking up the Grade 1 positions. The Union has no
objection to the cleaners being redeployed to the least
senior production positions.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company's procedural agreement allows it to transfer
the cleaners to Grade 1 positions in the scrapping area
(details supplied). The workers are part of the general
workforce and are, therefore, covered by the terms of
the agreement.
2. The cleaners have been transferred into equivalent
grades within the organisation. There has been
numerous occasions in the past when the Company has had
to subcontract work for financial reasons (details
supplied). In these instances, the Company has always
placed the workers affected into equivalent grades
within the Company. The Company must assert its right
to redeploy as provided for in Clause 13 of the
Company/Union Agreement.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court, having considered the submissions of the parties
together with the responses made during the hearing, takes the
view that the transfer of the two workers into the grade 1 jobs
comes within the scope of the current Company/Union Procedural
Agreement and recommends that the Union accepts the transfer of
the two workers with immediate effect.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
20th April, 1995 Evelyn Owens
J.F./D.T. ____________
Chairman
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Jerome Forde, Court Secretary.