LCR21541

FULL RECOMMENDATION

CD/17/187

RECOMMENDATIONNO.LCR21541

CCc-161769-17

SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990

PARTIES :

ROSCOMMON COUNTY COUNCIL

- AND -

SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION

DIVISION :

Chairman: Mr Foley
Employer Member: Mr Marie
Worker Member: Mr Shanahan

SUBJECT:
1. Unilateral Relocation of General Services Supervisors.

BACKGROUND:

2. This dispute could not be resolved at local level and was the subject of a Conciliation Conference under the auspices of the Workplace Relations Commission. As agreement was not reached, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 23 June 2017in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990.

A Labour Court hearing took place on the 4 August 2017.

UNION’S ARGUMENTS:

3. 1. The General Service Supervisors were moved without any discussion with them or with their Union.

2. The Employees involved have incurred financial loss.

3. Reasons for the relocation was not communicated to the Employees.

EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:

4. 1. The Employer reserves the right to reassign and relocate Employees from time to time.

2. The relocation of the five Employees does not result in the worsening of their conditions of employment or any financial loss.

3. The Municipal District Coordinator met with each Employee to explain the reason for the transfer.

RECOMMENDATION:

The Court has given careful consideration to the written and oral submissions of the parties.

The issue before the Court concerns the decision of the Council to re-locate six General Service Supervisors within the County. No change to the structure of operational areas was involved in this decision. In February 2017 the six General Service Supervisors were re-located within the pre-existing operational area structure.

The Court, in LCR20978, considered the challenge of implementing change in this Council and stated

“Managing change can be challenging for both unions and employers and the process must be approached with due consideration for the impact that it will have on employees.”

The Court notes with concern that the re-location of the six General Service Supervisors took place without the benefit of effective engagement in advance. Effective engagement in this context means (a) the process of engaging with the Supervisors concerned to ensure that there is full understanding of the basis for the re-location and (b) engaging to understand and as far as reasonably possible have regard to the implications for individuals of the re-location. Nothing in such a process amounts to a restriction on the Council’s capacity to take decisions as regards staff assignment or allocation of resources.

The Court recommends that the parties should engage as a matter of urgency such that full understanding is shared as regards the basis for the Council’s decision to re-locate the Supervisors and to consider the effects of that decision on individuals. In the meantime the Supervisors should continue to operate in accordance with the re-location as implemented in February 2017. Any unresolved issues remaining following effective engagement should be dealt with through normal industrial relations procedures as necessary.

Signed on behalf of the Labour Court

Kevin Foley
LS______________________
10 August 2017Chairman

NOTE

Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Louise Shally, Court Secretary.