Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD95202 Case Number: LCR14844 Section / Act: S20(1) Parties: HOSPITALLER ORDER OF ST. JOHN OF GOD - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Dispute concerning the transfer of a worker.
Recommendation:
The Court was surprised, given the stated Grievance Procedure
outlined in the Employee Handbook, and the nature of the case,
that the employer was not represented in Court.
In the absence of the employer the Court has only the claimant's
submissions, written and oral, to consider.
Based on the information before the Court, it would appear that
the employer's assessment of the claimant's talents, and the
subsequent use of these talents, albeit in the best interests of
the organisation, have resulted in a situation where the claimant
feels used and insecure. It is reasonable to assume that if this
situation had been handled sensitively it could have resulted in a
very positive response rather than the current situation.
The fact that a promise of no further movement was being changed
and that other workers were not being moved could have been
overcome if a more positive and less defensive position had been
taken up by the employer. This, coupled with the necessary
safeguard on job security, would have overcome any feeling of
insecurity as a result of the move.
Taking into account all of the issues in the case and in an
attempt to avoid making a difficult situation worse for either
party, the Court recommends as follows:-
(1) The employer to reassure the claimant in relation to her job
security in the event of her current post discontinuing;
(2) Both parties to meet to discuss the situation with a view to
preventing a deterioration in the working relationship.
Division: Mr Flood Mr Keogh Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD95202 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14844
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES:
HOSPITALLER ORDER OF ST. JOHN OF GOD
AND
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning the transfer of a worker.
BACKGROUND:
2. The dispute concerns a worker who is employed in a
secretarial capacity at the Order's residential centre at St.
Mary's, Drumcar, Co. Louth. The centre provides a range of
services to persons who are physically or mentally disabled
and employs a staff of approximately 400. The Union claims
that the transfer of the worker from the Personnel Department
to the position of secretary to the Consultant Psychiatrist
in Mental Handicap was unfair and in breach of an agreement
made with management seven years previously. The Union
stated that the worker has carried out her duties to a high
degree of proficiency over the past twenty-nine years, the
last seven of which were in the Personnel Department. During
the first ten years of her employment the worker was
transferred on a number of occasions and was required to work
in different sections or with different doctors. For the
next twelve years she worked for the Assessment Team.
Subsequently, the worker was transferred to the Personnel
Department. At the time, the Union claims she was given an
undertaking that she would not be required to transfer again.
However, in January, 1995, she was informed of her transfer
from the Personnel Department thereby considerably increasing
her workload. The Union raised the issue of her transfer
with the Order, to no avail. The Union referred the issue to
the Labour Court on the 14th March, 1995, in accordance with
Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969, for
investigation and recommendation. The Order did not attend
nor was it represented at the Court hearing, which took place
on the 14th July, 1995.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The worker has been treated unfairly in that the
undertaking she was given seven years ago by the
Administrative Manager has not been honoured.
2. The worker should not have been required to transfer.
She should not have been forced to increase her workload
to an almost intolerable degree by dictat of the
Director of Services.
3. Should the request by the worker that her transfer be
reversed prove to be impractical, she should be
compensated for the extra workload she is carrying
arising from her up-grading. Compensation in the form
of a lump sum payment should also be made in respect of
the re-location she has had to endure.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court was surprised, given the stated Grievance Procedure
outlined in the Employee Handbook, and the nature of the case,
that the employer was not represented in Court.
In the absence of the employer the Court has only the claimant's
submissions, written and oral, to consider.
Based on the information before the Court, it would appear that
the employer's assessment of the claimant's talents, and the
subsequent use of these talents, albeit in the best interests of
the organisation, have resulted in a situation where the claimant
feels used and insecure. It is reasonable to assume that if this
situation had been handled sensitively it could have resulted in a
very positive response rather than the current situation.
The fact that a promise of no further movement was being changed
and that other workers were not being moved could have been
overcome if a more positive and less defensive position had been
taken up by the employer. This, coupled with the necessary
safeguard on job security, would have overcome any feeling of
insecurity as a result of the move.
Taking into account all of the issues in the case and in an
attempt to avoid making a difficult situation worse for either
party, the Court recommends as follows:-
(1) The employer to reassure the claimant in relation to her job
security in the event of her current post discontinuing;
(2) Both parties to meet to discuss the situation with a view to
preventing a deterioration in the working relationship.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
1st August, 1995 Finbarr Flood
M.K./D.T. _______________
Deputy Chairman
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Finbarr Flood, Court Secretary.