FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2001 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : EIRCOM - AND - PUBLIC SERVICE EXECUTIVE UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Pierce Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Voluntary leaving programme.
BACKGROUND:
2. The dispute concerns a worker who is employed as a Telecom Executive VI, in the Company's Property Division of the Shared Services Business Area. The Union claims that the Company made the worker an offer to avail of its Voluntary Leaving Programme advertised in HR Circular 5/2000 in June, 2000 but that it subsequently withdrew the offer. The Company states that the worker's application was refused by his Manager, that he was notified in writing, and that appeals to the Business Area Director and through third party mediation through the Eircom Grievance Procedure and a Rights Commissioner were refused by Management. On the 30th April, 2000, the Union referred a complaint to the Labour Court under Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969 and agreed to be bound by the Court's recommendation. A Court hearing was held on the 26th June, 2001.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Company sent a booklet, unsolicited, to the worker's home entitled "Voluntary Leaving Programme." It is clear in correspondence to the worker that the Company made an unqualified offer of early release under the terms of its Voluntary Leaving Programme. The Union contends that the Company has an obligation to accept the worker's application for release under the terms of that scheme.
2. The Company stated that the worker would have to be replaced. However, at least eight staff have left Property Section over the past three years under the terms of the Early Retirement Voluntary Schemes and were replaced by staff who were externally recruited. This has occurred as recently as December, 2000. There is no bar on a replacement being sourced from the Company's Resource Business Pool, whereby staff, who are deemed to be surplus to requirements in their own areas of work, are assigned to new job roles within the Company. By replacing him from this source the Company would have achieved a nett reduction of one on its payroll.
3. There is no declared staffing level for Property Section. Other areas disclosed their targets figures - Property Section did not do so.
4. The scheme had a closing date of end December, 2000. As the claimant made his application well within the time frame open to him, he feels that the terms of this scheme should be afforded to him.
5. Voluntary Leaving schemes have been made available to individuals to whom schemes were not available generally in that category.
6. The Company operated the Voluntary Leaving scheme selectively and not in a transparent fashion and thus, operated in a discriminatory and unfair manner.
7. In the course of its dealings with the Company on this matter, the Union has asked for a statement indicating whether the claimant will ever be eligible to avail of a Voluntary Leaving Scheme. This query, seeking factual information, has not been replied to and the claimant would like to receive a statement clarifying the matter.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The brochure issued to workers identified the next step in the process as to request a personal financial statement from a" Support Manager." There were four nominated Support Managers (i.e. Eircom Employees) in Dublin whose role is to guide the appellant through the process steps. The claimant applied via a Support Manager on the 25th of July, 2000, but he was not released by his Line Manager thereby terminating the scheme process. The claimant has never been provided with a personal financial statement of his potential scheme benefits, and has never been offered or completed a resignation form. These internal protocols are required to conclude an agreement to leave under the scheme. None of these required protocols have been fulfilled for or by the claimant, as his manager is entitled to retain him as provided in HR Circular 5/2000. He has no basis to claim that an unqualified offer was made or that a contract exists.
2. While the Company must reduce current head count levels, it also must not release staff where that would do damage to the resource skills needed to meet business requirements. Management cannot concede all requests to leave. The final judgement can only be made by the Line Manager with accountability and responsibility.
3. Each scheme operated by Eircom since the mid 1980's has been announced by means of a HR Circular. The differing constraints on release, which applied from time to time, have been detailed in the Circulars. In some cases all applications have been accepted, and a contract for resignation agreed on the basis of the personal financial benefits. In other cases a complete prohibition has applied to releases in certain skills/business functions e.g I.T. In this instance in Property Division, as in most others, release is dependent on line management assessment of business requirements.
4. Past releases in Property, referred to, were effected under a past Early Retirement Scheme.
5. There were 14 other instances whereby workers who took the defined process steps to request a personal financial statement were also refused. In Property Division a Manager, in similar circumstances to the claimant, resigned as it was clear the Voluntary Leaving Programme was not available to him.
6. With regard to the prospect of the worker ever being offered the terms of a voluntary scheme in the future, Management would not rule out such a possibility.
RECOMMENDATION:
Having considered the submissions of the parties, the Court is satisfied that the Company is correct when it contends that there is no automatic right to benefit from the Voluntary Leaving Programme simply by virtue of applying for the scheme. Consequently, the Court accepts that the Company had the right to refuse the claimant's application.
However, the Court notes the statements made concerning the claimant's perception of the changes in his employment status and his concerns regarding his future prospects within the Company, and the fact that the Company did not reassure him on this point. The Court recommends that the Company should consider allowing him to avail of a voluntary redundancy package at the next possible opportunity. The Court recommends that he should be treated with priority in terms of his release under such a scheme. It was indicated to the Court that there is a possibility of such a package being on offer in the short term.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
9th July, 2001______________________
TOD/CCDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Tom O'Dea, Court Secretary.