FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : GE ENERGY IRELAND LIMITED - AND - A WORKER DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Ms Cryan Worker Member: Ms Tanham |
1. Demotion
BACKGROUND:
2. This case concerns a dispute between the Company and the worker in relation to the worker's position within the Company. The worker is categorised as an "Operations Technician with upgrade status"which enables him to act as a shift team leader. Management contends that the worker was subsequently seconded temporarily to a position of Operations Support Engineer. The seconded role involved working "days" reporting to the Operations Manager whereas the worker's original role was on a "shift" basis. Management contends that the worker did not wish to come back from secondment as the temporary role may have been perceived as a role of greater/more senior status within the organisation. The worker contends that his transfer back to his original role was unfair and seen as a demotion/removal from a position which he contends he worked hard in and wished to retain.
The worker referred the matter to the Labour Court on 21st August 2015 in accordance with Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969 and agreed to be bound by the Court's Recommendation. A Labour Court hearing took place on 28th October 2015.
WORKER'S ARGUMENT:
3 1 The worker applied and was interviewed for the role of Operations Support Engineer. He was successful in his application and was in the role for a number of years before being returned to his original grade/position. This is unacceptable and is perceived as a demotion/loss of position within the organisation
COMPANY'S ARGUMENT:
4 1 The worker's seconded role was temporary. When the secondment came to an end the worker did not wish to return to his substantive grade. Management's position is that the worker was aware that it was a temporary situation and he would eventually have to return to his original role.
RECOMMENDATION:
Having considered the submissions the Court is convinced that the core difference between the parties stems from the Claimant’s perception of his status and standing within the company following his change of role.
It is clear that the Company Management hold the Claimant in high esteem and that they acknowledge his potential to further develop within the organisation. For his part, the Claimant is clearly a committed employee of the company who wishes to realise his full potential.
Against that background it seems to the Court that the solution to the difficulties giving rise to this referral lie in the company making further and more focused efforts to assuage the understandable concerns of the Claimant in relation to the change in his role.
The Court believes that the appropriate recommendation that it should make in this case is that the Management hold further meetings with the Claimant for the purpose of addressing his core concerns, as articulated in the course of the hearing. These meetings should be directed at making a final and determined effort to resolve outstanding issues between the parties.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
13th November 2015______________________
AHChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Andrew Heavey, Court Secretary.