FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : RTE/RTE TRANSMISSION NETWORK LTD (2RN) - AND - TWO NAMED WORKERS (REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION) DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Marie Worker Member: Ms Tanham |
1. Appeal of an Adjudication Officer's Recommendation No(s): r-158631-IR-15/EH and r-158633-IR-15/EH
BACKGROUND:
2. This is an appeal by two workers who are employed by RTE but are on secondment to 2RN. They were successful in securing promotions with 2RN but want to remain on RTE contracts of employment. The matter was referred to an Adjudicator for investigation and decision. On the 6th January, 2016 the Adjudicator issued his decision. On the 4th February, 2016 the workers appealed the Adjudicator's decision to the Labour Court in accordance with Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 8th March, 2016.
UNIONS' ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Union says that ultimately it is a matter of fairness and if the offer of promotion cannot be accepted because the unfair clause of relinquishing the RTE contract is too high a price to pay then the workers have no room to develop their careers within RTE or 2RN. This is unheard of within the RTE family and is an unfair condition of employment.
2. The Union argues that the existing letters of secondment given to the workers in 2003 when they left RTE cover the promotion situation.
3. The Union do not agree that the divestment of the RTE contracts is a requirement for transparency and independence.
EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. 2RN was under no obligation to offer promotion to the Claimants at all but they have been offered promotion with continuity of employment and an enhancement of rights. If the Claimants wish to accept these roles they must do so as 2RN employees and this is not an unfair promotion condition.
2. In a situation where these seconded staff sought to return to RTE and vacancies did not exist, RTE could be faced with the unpalatable prospect of redundancies and associated costs.
3.The employer argues that to provide for promotions and retain the secondment arrangement is likely to be frowned upon by the Commission for Communications regulations.
DECISION:
This is an appeal by the Union on behalf of two employees against Adjudication Officer’s Recommendations no r-158631-ir-15/EH and r-158633-ir-15/EH. The Adjudication Officer found against their claims for their retention as RTÉ employees following their promotion in RTÉ Transmission Network Limited, now known as “2RN”, previously known as RTNL.
The Appellants concerned were seconded from RTÉ in 2003 to 2RN for an indefinite period in their existing capacity. They applied for and were successful in securing promotions to Rigging Supervisors with 2RN in 2014.
Management required them to sign promotional contracts with 2RN and it was a condition of the offer that the Appellants become directly employed by 2RN and the seconded arrangements with RTÉ cease. The Appellants have not signed the new contracts as they wish to retain their employment with RTÉ. The Union submitted that to require them to relinquish their RTÉ contracts was an unfair condition for promotion.
Management informed the Court that the established practice for over ten years was to offer 2RN contracts to all newly employed staff and to all secondees from RTÉ on promotion. The Court was also told that there were seven people promoted within this period of time.
Having considered the oral and written submissions made by both parties, the Court recommends that Management’s proposal to guarantee all terms and conditions of employment including length of service, as outlined in its correspondence of 6thOctober 2014 addressed to the Union, be accepted along with the offer as outlined in its correspondence dated 5thJune 2015 regarding a four year fixed term contract with 2RN.
The Court so Recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
11th March, 2016______________________
CCCaroline Jenkinson
Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Ceola Cronin, Court Secretary.