FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : AN POST - AND - CPSU DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Ms Doyle Worker Member: Mr McCarthy |
1. Voluntary exits, transfer of work & other issues.
BACKGROUND:
2. The case before the Court concerns a dispute between the Employer and the Union in relation to the Employer's proposal to transfer work from back office operations in the GPO, Dublin to four members of staff located in Sligo. It is the Employer's contention that there is a business requirement to redistribute work to those employees in Sligo in order to avoid a staffing surplus. In transferring the work to Sligo, the Employer is in a position to offer voluntary redundancies to employees located in Dublin. The Union rejects the Employer's position and opposes the transfer of work outside of central operations.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. Emerging from Conciliation was a proposal recommended for acceptance by both parties. The Union subsequently rejected the LRC proposal. As agreement was not reached, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 5th December, 2014, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 18th February, 2015.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The transfer of work to Sligo in this instance is creating a precedent whereby workers can be transferred at any point in time.
2. The Union contends that its members are working amidst the threat that they may be redeployed to an alternative location at any time.
3. The Union asserts that the transfer of work in this manner undermines and suppresses the positions of workers based in central operations.
EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. There is an urgent business need to transfer work to Sligo in order to avoid a staffing surplus.
2. The Employer maintains that the proposed transferring work emanates from an area where there are employees actively seeking voluntary redundancy.
3. The release of four employees would save the Employer a significant amount of money per annum.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has carefully considered the submissions of the parties in this case. It cannot identify any disadvantage that could accrue to the workers who are party to the dispute in consequence of the Company's proposal being implemented. In fact all of the evidence points in the opposite direction in that it will facilitate those who wish to avail of the VS/VER scheme, on whose behalf the Union has already made representations.
In these circumstances the Court recommends that the Company's proposal, together with the assurances given in conciliation, be accepted. In that context the Court does not recommend the discontinuance of the pilot scheme currently in place in Portlaoise.
In so far as this dispute relates to demarcation of work as between different union groups, the Court has long held the position that such matters should not be addressed in its recommendations. Rather, any such matters should be dealt with through other established machinery.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
26th February 2015______________________
SCChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Sharon Cahill, Court Secretary.