Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD94701 Case Number: LCR14669 Section / Act: S20(1) Parties: AN POST - and - A WORKER |
Claim by the worker that he be reinstated to the Bank Duty.
Recommendation:
It is clear to the Court, indeed it was acknowledged by the
Company that the claimant was given the Bank Duty in January,
1994. It was further accepted that the claimant performed the
role from January, 1994 to October, 1994 in the belief that the
duty had been allocated to him. The timescale before he was
informed otherwise seems totally unreasonable in the
circumstances.
Because of the agreement between Management and the Union to
allocate the Bank Duty to an individual other than the claimant it
is not possible to now accommodate the claimant within this duty.
The Court therefore recommends that the claimant be accommodated
in a role or duty commensurate with the Bank Duty in hours, shifts
and financial package.
The Court so recommends.
Division: Mr Flood Mr McHenry Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD94701 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14669
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 2O(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES:
AN POST
AND
A WORKER
SUBJECT:
1. Claim by the worker that he be reinstated to the Bank Duty.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker concerned is employed as a post office clerk in
the G.P.O. In November, 1993 the Company advertised a
considerable number of vacancies to be filled by internal
competition. All serving post office clerks were eligible to
compete. It was decided that all consequential vacancies
would be filled from the same competition. The worker
concerned applied for various duties and consequential
duties. He was informed by the Company in January, 1994 that
a consequential vacancy had arisen in the Bank Duty. He was
offered and accepted this duty and worked the duty for a
number of months. Subsequently the original post holder did
not take up his new assignment and returned to the Bank Duty
thereby displacing the claimant. The worker concerned
claimed that he was unfairly treated and sought to refer the
dispute to a Rights Commissioner for investigation. The
Company objected to such an investigation. On the 24th
November, 1994 the worker referred the dispute to the Labour
Court under Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act,
1969 and agreed to be bound by the Court's recommendation.
The Court investigated the dispute on the 16th January, 1995.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The worker was offered the Bank Duty by Management and
accepted it in good faith. He worked the duty from
January, 1994 to October, 1994 and assumed that he was
the post holder. He worked regular hours on this duty
and also earned a substantial amount of overtime.
2. The worker concerned was removed from the Bank Duty in
an arbitrary fashion without consultation. He offered
to attend discussions on the issue but the offer was not
taken up by his Union. He has suffered a substantial
loss in overtime earnings. The worker is seeking
reinstatement to the Bank Duty or, failing this,
compensation for his loss.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company accepts that the Bank Duty position was
offered to the worker concerned and he accepted the job
in the belief that was now the duty holder.
Unfortunately the original post holder had not
relinquished the Bank Duty post. He had indicated
verbally his intention to take up a Survey Branch Duty
but subsequently changed his mind.
2. The local union branch intervened on behalf of the
original post holder on the grounds that he had not
relinquished the Bank Duty, was the senior officer and
had not taken up the Survey Branch Duty. As there was
no precedent for this situation the Company considered
that in equity there was no option but to reverse the
earlier Management decision (appointing the claimant).
RECOMMENDATION:
It is clear to the Court, indeed it was acknowledged by the
Company that the claimant was given the Bank Duty in January,
1994. It was further accepted that the claimant performed the
role from January, 1994 to October, 1994 in the belief that the
duty had been allocated to him. The timescale before he was
informed otherwise seems totally unreasonable in the
circumstances.
Because of the agreement between Management and the Union to
allocate the Bank Duty to an individual other than the claimant it
is not possible to now accommodate the claimant within this duty.
The Court therefore recommends that the claimant be accommodated
in a role or duty commensurate with the Bank Duty in hours, shifts
and financial package.
The Court so recommends.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
30th Janaury, 1995 Finbarr Flood
T.O'D./D.T. _______________
Deputy Chairman
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Tom O'Dea, Court Secretary.