FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : IARNR�D �IREANN - AND - AMALGAMATED ENGINEERING AND ELECTRICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr McGrath Employer Member: Mr Brennan Worker Member: Mr Rorke |
1. Dispute concerning the transfer of a worker to the Motive Power Department.
BACKGROUND:
2. The dispute has its origins in 1993 when the Company transferred several staff from the Motive Power Department to other workshops within the Inchicore works. The worker concerned in this dispute was transferred to the Lifting Shop on the 16th of August, 1993. His transfer was one of a number to which the Union objected as they were not "in line with the spirit of agreed procedures". The matter was the subject of a Labour Court hearing arising from which the Court recommended (LCR14673) that, by and large, the transfer of staff should be on a seniority basis. The Union has, subsequently, been seeking to have the worker returned to the Motive Power Department on the grounds that he was not junior at the time of his move and that there are men junior to him still in the Department. The Company's response is that there is no vacancy in the shop and that the level of work has led to further staff reductions there.
The dispute was the subject of a conciliation conference under the auspices of the Labour Relations Commission, at which agreement was not reached. The dispute was referred to the Labour Court, on the 14th of January, 1997, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. The Court investigated the dispute on the 13th of February, 1997.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The terms and spirit of LCR14673 allow for the worker's transfer to be granted on seniority and on skills basis.
2. There are workers junior to the worker concerned currently working in the Motive Power Department.
3. There have been vacancies there and the worker has been ignored when these vacancies were being filled.
4. Colleagues in exactly similar circumstances have had their transfers granted.
5. The Company has said on a number of occasions that it would address this issue. They have not done so.
6. There is no doubt that there is sufficient work for the worker in the Motive Power Department.
7. The worker has played his part in serving the Company in terms of staff mobility and the spirit of the Productivity Agreement and LCR14673, and now in the interest of fairness he should be transferred.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company outlined at conciliation that it was prepared to implement fully LCR14673 and that if the worker submitted a written transfer request, the Company would consider it. To date no written application has been received.
2. In order for the Company to carry out effectively its maintenance overhaul requirements it must have the facility to deploy staff where they will be fully utilised.
3. The Company has accepted LCR14673 which affords employees the opportunity to apply for return to his designated location six months after transfer.
4. Such applications will be dealt with in a reasonable manner and will be responded to within a 2-week period.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court finds that there has been an unacceptable delay in dealing with the claimant's request for transfer.
The Court notes the Company accepted Labour Court Recommendation LCR14673 which provides the manner in which such requests are to be handled.
In all the circumstances the Company should arrange for the worker concerned to be transferred to the Motive Power Department as soon as possible and in any case within the next 6 months. He should be offered such work as may be available whether it is permanent or temporary.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Tom McGrath
11th of March, 1997______________________
M.K./S.G.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Michael Keegan, Court Secretary.