Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD95286 Case Number: LCR14885 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: BEAMISH AND CRAWFORD (THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS CONFEDERATION) - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Dispute concerning a deployment proposal.
Recommendation:
The Court is aware that many difficulties arose in the Company in
putting into operation the revised work practices following its
restructuring. The court is satisfied, following consideration of
all the facts and the available alternatives, that the option
effected is the most suitable.
Thus the recommendation of the Court is that he should be
confirmed as the sole operator in the section with the title of
Ullage Co-ordinator and that he be supported with another general
operator as and when management considers this necessary.
Division: Mr McGrath Mr McHenry Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD95286 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14885
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES:
BEAMISH AND CRAWFORD
(REPRESENTED BY THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS CONFEDERATION)
AND
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning a deployment proposal.
BACKGROUND:
2. In May, 1994 the parties reached agreement on a major
rationalisation plan involving changed work practices and
redundancies. As part of the agreement the Company gave a
commitment to deal with two ex-supervisors separately and in
a manner which would not affect operatives. The present
dispute relates to the Company's proposal to appoint one of
these ex-supervisors to a newly created post of Ullage
Co-ordinator. This is an upgrading of a position which was
formerly discharged by a general operative. The Union
maintains that this work is proper to the operative grade and
should be performed by the present holder of the post.
Management rejected the claim. The dispute was referred to
the Labour Relations Commission and conciliation conferences
were held on the 22nd March, 6th April and 27th April, 1995.
Agreement was not possible and the dispute was referred to
the Labour Court on the 8th May, 1995. A Court hearing was
held in Cork on the 16th August, 1995.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The post to which the Company proposes to appoint the
ex-supervisor has always been the property of Cork No. 2
Branch production section. The general operative who
holds the post is a highly experienced competent
operative and is the worker most suited to the post. It
is grossly unfair to displace this operative and replace
him with a person who held a supervisory post.
2. The Company's proposal reduced the number of operative
posts and increases vulnerability to the redundancy of
operatives in future. The Union would have no objection
to the ex-supervisor being appointed to the Ullage
Department and working in conjunction with the operator
currently holding the position provided that work proper
to general operatives is not undertaken by the
ex-supervisor in other areas of the brewery.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company offered the ex-supervisor two options of
redeployment viz. a supervisory post in the Marina Depot
or Ullage Co-ordinator. He chose the latter. Had he
selected the Marina post the most junior supervisor
there would have to be made redundant. By choosing the
Ullage post redundancy was avoided.
2. The Ullage Co-ordinator is not a supervisory post but an
upgraded one. It is not without precedent that former
supervisors, due to reorganisation, would operate in
other non-supervisory posts within Companies.
3. This ex-supervisor is and remains a member of S.I.P.T.U.
No. 2 Branch. The Company does not understand the
Union's objection in choosing between two members of
their own branch. The Company's action is fair and
reasonable. Any other option will unnecessarily lead to
a redundancy.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court is aware that many difficulties arose in the Company in
putting into operation the revised work practices following its
restructuring. The court is satisfied, following consideration of
all the facts and the available alternatives, that the option
effected is the most suitable.
Thus the recommendation of the Court is that he should be
confirmed as the sole operator in the section with the title of
Ullage Co-ordinator and that he be supported with another general
operator as and when management considers this necessary.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
7th September, 1995 Tom McGrath
T.O'D./D.T. _______________
Deputy Chairman
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Tom O'Dea, Court Secretary.