Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD95121 Case Number: LCR14797 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: FAS - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Dispute concerning the re-assignment of a worker following secondment.
Recommendation:
The issue before the Court for consideration is whether the
claimant has, as claimed, been unfairly treated relative to other
employees in similar positions.
The Court, having considered the written and oral submissions, and
particularly, having considered the letters outlining the
conditions of assignment dated 26th October, 1990 and 7th
December, 1992, (both signed by the claimant) does not find that
the claimant was treated less favourably than other staff.
The Court finds that the Company has the right to assign the
claimant to a post "within the Dublin area".
Division: Mr Flood Mr McHenry Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD95121 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14797
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES:
FAS
and
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning the re-assignment of a worker following
secondment.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker was a Training Advisor in the former AnCO Training
Advisory Service. Following the establishment of FAS, the
Training Advisory Service was scaled down and re-structured.
A large body of staff, including the claimant, was displaced
and, over a period of time, those staff were re-deployed to
other work-locations in FAS. The worker had several
temporary assignments prior to being seconded to the
Construction Industries Federation (C.I.F.). On his return
on 1st November, 1992, he was assigned to work in the
Programme Development in Head Office, Baggot Street, for 5
months. He was subsequently unassigned until his assignment
to the West Dublin Office in Tallaght. The Union is seeking
his re-assignment to a permanent position in Head Office.
FAS's position is that when he went on secondment he was told
that, on his return, he could be assigned anywhere in Dublin.
The dispute was the subject of a conciliation conference
under the auspices of the Labour Relations Commission on 19th
October, 1994, at which agreement was not reached.
The dispute was referred to the Labour Court in accordance
with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990.
The Court investigated the dispute on 29th May, 1995, the
earliest date convenient to both parties.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The worker has been treated in an unfair manner. The
secondment procedures were not applied to him nor was he
given the same opportunity as staff who returned from
"job-search". Because he took up a temporary
assignment, he has been penalised by management's
attempts to force him into a post that does not exist
within the structures and in a location that is
unsuitable to him.
2. A development plan should have been worked out in order
to enable the worker to fill a vacant post in Head
Office. A post was actually created in Head Office to
facilitate a staff member who returned after an 8-year
career break.
3. FAS is a regionalised structure which is attempting to
place the worker in a region where he does not reside.
It was an aspiration of management, on the introduction
of regionalisation that staff should work in the same
region in which they reside.
4. The worker was not treated in the same manner as other
members of staff, many of whose re-arrangements have
been sorted out through local negotiations.
5. The worker applied for numerous posts which exist within
the structures without success (details supplied to the
Court).
FAS'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The worker acknowledged the difficulties facing FAS in
relation to the on-going re-organisation and he was
fully aware that the situation that might exist on his
return was uncertain.
2. The letters of secondment to the C.I.F. and to Programme
Development, which were signed by the worker, stated
clearly what would happen at the end of the assignments.
The letter of secondment to the C.I.F. states as
follows:-
"At the end of this secondment you will return to
duty with FAS. You will be assigned to any
available post in the Dublin area".
3. The worker was seen by his former manager on a number of
occasions following his return. He was advised
regarding redeployment opportunities, in the same way as
other staff were.
4. He has been assigned to a post of Senior Employment
Services Officer Grade 8, which is a post at his grade
level, since September, 1994. This post is located in
Tallaght, in Dublin West, which is within the Dublin
area. However, he refuses to accept the fact that he is
actually assigned to a post in that office and still
refuses to carry out the full range of duties of a
Senior Employment Services Officer.
5. The worker has been treated very fairly, possibly more
favourably than many of his former Training Advisory
Service colleagues. Many of his former colleagues had
to accept posts lower than their personal grade. Over 30
of these staff still remain in that position.
RECOMMENDATION:
The issue before the Court for consideration is whether the
claimant has, as claimed, been unfairly treated relative to other
employees in similar positions.
The Court, having considered the written and oral submissions, and
particularly, having considered the letters outlining the
conditions of assignment dated 26th October, 1990 and 7th
December, 1992, (both signed by the claimant) does not find that
the claimant was treated less favourably than other staff.
The Court finds that the Company has the right to assign the
claimant to a post "within the Dublin area".
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
8th June, 1995 Finbarr Flood
M.K./M.M. _______________
Deputy Chairman
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Michael Keegan, Court Secretary.