FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : CHADWICK'S LTD - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Internal transfer.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Worker concerned joined the Company in 1979. He worked in sales throughout the 1990s and in mid -1993 was redeployed to an administrative role. In December 2005 he was approached by a branch manager and asked to redeploy to the role of branch transport co-ordinator in a temporary capacity. The Worker agreed to this in order to allow Management time to put in place a procedure to select a replacement.
The Worker made repeated requests to Management to return to the role he had been doing for the previous twelve years, to no avail. Subsequently, due to branch requirements, the Company deemed it necessary to make the redeployment more permanent.
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. As agreement was not reached, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 14th November, 2006, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 24th May, 2007.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1.The Union maintains that the Company did not clearly state its intention to make the redeployment of the Worker permanent when they asked him to take the position.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company believes it is reasonable for it to use the flexibility of its staff resources and redeploy staff when deemed necessary.
2. The letter of appointment given to the Worker on commencement of his employment states, inter alia, "you must be prepared to work as directed i.e. stores/yard/ haulage or wherever circumstances necessitate."
RECOMMENDATION:
The dispute before the Court concerns a claim by the Union on behalf of a Worker who was transferred from clerical duties to transport co-ordinator duties on a temporary basis in December 2005 but was not returned to his normal duties at the expiry of the period. The Union disputed Management’s actions and sought the Company to advertise and fill the transport post on a permanent basis and allow the Worker to return to the clerical duties.
Management explained to the Court that it had a right to move staff in order to meet its business needs and that this had been enshrined in the Worker’s contract of employment. Furthermore, due to historical reasons, the Worker concerned had been placed on the Grade III pay rate since 1993 on a red cirling basis, however, his duties were appropriate to a Grade II post and when the opportunity arose Management decided to retain him in the Grade III post (the transport co-ordinator post).
Management accepted that at the expiry of the temporary period, the retention of the Worker in the Grade III post was done without agreement.
Having considered the views of the parties expressed in their oral and written submissions, the Court supports Management’s right to manage their business and accepts that it was prudent to transfer the Worker in the circumstances outlined in this case. However, the Court is not satisfied that the manner in which this case was dealt with was fair and reasonable.
The Court recommends that the Worker should remain in the transport co-coordinator role, however, Management must ensure that he is informed of any future vacancies arising at Grade III level and he should be given the opportunity to apply for such posts.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
1st June, 2007______________________
MG.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Madelon Geoghegan, Court Secretary.