FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : FÁS - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Doherty Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Breach of job rotation & industrial relations procedures.
BACKGROUND:
2. The dispute before the Court relates to the Claimant who is employed byFÁS. He is employed as a Grade 7 Project Manager. The Union claims that Management have requested the Claimant to take up a new position as part of a job rotation move. When the worker refused to move the Company said they would be initiating disciplinary proceedings. The Claimant does not believe that the rotation policy provides for obligatory rotation and the Union maintains that procedures were not properly followed. Management maintains that rotation is required in order to allow more than one person to have an expertise in a particular area.
The dispute could not be resolved at local level and was the subject of a Conciliation Conference under the auspices of the Labour Relations Commission. At Conciliation the claimant agreed without prejudice to his stated position to move to a new position while the issue referred to the Labour Court was processed. The dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 19th January, 2007 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 30th March, 2007.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3.1 The Union contends that the Claimant's removal from the post of 'Project Manager Safe Pass' was carried out to meet a personalised agenda and that the Claimant's reputation has been seriously damaged in the eyes of hisFÁScolleagues.
2. The Union contends that Management has broken its Rotation Policy 020-20-01 in its unprecedented treatment of the Claimant.
3. The Union further contends that Management has broken its Industrial Relations Procedures Agreement in the handling of this dispute.
4. The Union argue that the Claimant was treated unfairly and should be returned to his previous position inFÁSas Project Manager, Grade 7 in the Safe Pass Unit as provided for in Section 2 of the Labour Relations Commission Agreement of 19th December, 2006.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4.1 The Claimant has currently rotated to a new grade 7 post, albeit under protest and is carrying out his new duties to his usual high standard. Management believe that this rotation was in order and acknowledges that there is a major benefit to the organisation in the work the Claimant is currently doing and that as a result of this rotation a further expertise is being grown with another grade 7 staff member to add to the organisation's intelligence in delivery of the Safe Pass Programme.
2. Management contends that there was no breach of its policy on Rotation and there has been no breach of the Industrial Relations Procedure Agreement in the consultations in this matter.
3. The process of rotation of staff at all grades is of vital importance toFÁSto enable the organisation to rapidly respond to the demands of its stakeholders now and in the future. Rotations have happened in the past, they are currently ongoing and they will be a feature in the future asFÁSendeavours to deliver on its mandate to shareholders.
4. Rotation is an element of the Towards 2016 Agreement as it was in Sustaining Progress agreement before it as the Social Partners realised its importance to human resource management in the Public and Civil Service.
5.Management are requesting the Court of reaffirm its view that the allocation of duties and functions within FÁS is primarily the prerogative of management and affirm that the Claimant should continue in his new post without protest.
RECOMMENDATION:
The issue before the Court concerns the rotation of a staff member who is employed as an Assistant Manager at Grade 7. The Union claim that Management’s handling of this employee breached their own Job Rotation Policy and Industrial Relations Procedures.
The Court has carefullyconsidered the views of the parties expressed in their oral and written submissions. The Court fully accepts and endorses Management’s right to manage and its rights to rotate staff in accordance with the FÁS Job Rotation Policy.
However, the Court is of the view that in the circumstances of this case, and in light of the background as outlined to the Court, the Assistant Manager concerned should have been handled differently and the rotation should not have taken place in isolation of the other matters which plainly required further investigation.
Furthermore, the Court is of the view that in the circumstances of this case, FÁS breached the Industrial Relations Procedures when it threatened to suspend him from the payroll.
The Court recommends that the Assistant Manager should be reinstated into the position he previously held at Grade 7, Project Manager Construction/Safe Pass within the STB Division and recommends that the background history of this case as outlined should be examined within the terms agreed at the Labour Relations Commission on 19th December 2006.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
5th_April, 2007______________________
JBDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Jackie Byrne, Court Secretary.