FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2001 SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : NOVUM (OVERSEAS) LTD (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION) DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Pierce Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Appeal against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation IR 5511/01/TB
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker has been employed by the Company for over 21 years. He worked for 12 years as a production operative and then worked for 9 years in the stores. The Union claims that in 2001 the worker was moved from the stores without any consultation or agreement with the Union.
Management rejected the Union's claim. It stated that any decision to retain or transfer an employee out of the stores area is based upon ability, versatility and knowledge. Selection has never been based on service or seniority.
The dispute was the subject of a Rights Commissioner's hearing which took place on the 11th April, 2002. The following is the Rights Commissioner's Recommendation:-
"I accept the respondents argument concerning the equal status of general operatives and that manning levels in the stores is dictated by work requirements. However, some acknowledgement must be given to the fact that the claimant was employed in the stores for an unbroken period of nine years. I recommend that the respondent give the claimant the opportunity to train and develop the skills necessary to ensure his transfer back to the stores. He should be transferred back at the earliest opportunity consistent with the work requirements."
The Company appealed the Recommendation to the Labour Court on the 17th June, 2002, in accordance with Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. The Court investigated the dispute on the 23rd August, 2002.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. Selection to transfer a worker has never been based on service or seniority.
2. Every employee is a general operative with no restricting demarcations to interdepartmental transfers.
3. All general operatives are paid at the same rate of pay and enjoy the same terms and conditions of employment. The claimant has not suffered any diminution of status in his move to the production line.
4. The Company is not in a position either financially or operationally to commit the time and resources to training up an individual where there is no requirement for additional skills.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The worker was not given any notice that he could be moved from his position in the stores which he held for 9 years.
2. The claimant was not given any time to upskill in the areas it is claimed he was deficient in and was not offered training or personal development assistance to equip him with the necessary skills, to retain his position in the stores.
3. The worker requested in writing that he be given the necessary training but these requests were never acceded to.
4. The Union requests that the Court upholds the Rights Commissioner's decision and allow the worker the opportunity to transfer back to the stores area.
DECISION:
Having considered the written and oral submissions of the parties, the Court is of the view that the recommendation of the Rights Commissioner is the most appropriate way of resolving this claim. The Court endorses the Right Commissioner's recommendation, however in the interest of clarity, the Court understands that the intention of the recommendation was to recommend as follows:-
- In the event of a vacancy arising in the future in the stores area, the company should at that time give the claimant the opportunity to train and develop any skills necessary, to ensure his transfer back to the stores. He should be transferred back at the earliest opportunity consistent with the work requirements when such a vacancy next arises.
The Court so decides.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
30th August, 2002______________________
LW/BRDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Larry Wisely, Court Secretary.