FULL RECOMMENDATION
SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : LEITRIM COUNTY COUNCIL REPRESENTED BY LOCAL GOVERNMENT MANAGEMENT AGENCY - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION) DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Ms Doyle Worker Member: Ms Tanham |
1. Redeployment and compensation.
BACKGROUND:
2. On 14 February 2019, the Union on behalf of the Worker referred this dispute to the Labour Court 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 2 April 2019.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. No consultation occurred with the worker or his Union before his redeployment.
2. The Union submitted that the Worker had attained seniority in the Department and therefore should not have been selected for redeployment.
3. In the Roads Department the Worker did five hours of regular and rostered overtime per week.
EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The assignment of staff within a local authority is a matter for the Chief Executive.
2. The Council submitted that this is not a case of redeployment but rather a case of an interdepartmental transfer at the same grade.
3. The Council submit that the overtime worked while assigned to the Roads department was never regular and rostered.
RECOMMENDATION:
The claim before the Court under Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act 1969 concerns the redeployment of a worker represented by the Union and his claim for compensation for loss of earnings as a result of that redeployment.
The Claimant has been employed by the County Council since 1993 and as a Lorry Driver since 1998. On 6th February 2012 he was transferred from the Roads Department to Water Services. This arose due to the retirement of a Lorry Driver in Water Services. In November 2014 he was given a commitment that the situation would be “kept under review”. This commitment was reaffirmed on 12thFebruary 2016, however, no progress was made on his request to be transferred back to the Roads Department.
The Union claimed that the Claimant was not consulted beforehand about the transfer and due to his seniority, he should not have been the driver selected. He sought to be transferred back to the Roads Department. Furthermore, it was submitted that the Claimant was at a loss of five hours of regular and rostered overtime per week. He sought compensation for the loss of earnings.
In December 2015 the Union raised the issue of the Claimant’s transfer. It contended that the Claimant’s transfer was a redeployment and that such redeployment did not conform with the rules governing redeployment under the Public Service Agreement 2010 – 2014 (the Croke Park Agreement). It was at this point that the Union raised the issue of compensation for loss of earnings.
The Union referred to paragraph 6.5.3. of the Croke Park Agreement which provided that redeployment in the local authorities would be implemented in an open and transparent manner with full regard to the need for consultation with individuals and representative Trade Unions’. The Union said that no such consultation had taken place in this case. In support of its contention and in dispute of management’s position, it cited the paragraph which includes reference to“reassignment within the employees’ own local authority”.
Management declined to engage in mediation or in a referral to an Adjudication Officer as his claim had arisen almost four years after his transfer had taken place. Management rejected the Union’s claim as in its view the Claimant’s transfer was a departmental transfer of a staff member at the same grade rather than a redeployment. When the Union attempted to raise the matter of the Claimant’s transfer which had taken place in February 2012, as a formal grievance in January 2019, management advised it that could not see how the matter could be raised through the Grievance Procedure at such a significant time remove. It stated that the Grievance Procedure was designed to provide a framework for dealing with individual staff matters promptly and fairly at the earliest opportunity, but in any event within a reasonable timescale. It further disputed the contention that it was in breach of the Croke Park agreement. It held that assignment of staff within a local authority is a matter for the Chief Executive as provided for under the 2001 Local Government Act (as amended). The issue of redeployment as it arises in the Croke Park Agreement relates to where there is a declared surplus of staff in the local authority, it stated that no such surplus existed at the time of the Claimant’s transfer.
Management rejected the claim for compensation for loss of earnings, stating that the Claimant continues to receive overtime payments in his present post. In any event it disputed that the overtime worked by the Claimant while in the Road Department was not regular and rostered.
Having considered the submission of both sides the Court is of the view that the overtime referred to by the Claimant was contractual in nature, was regular and was rostered and accordingly, the Court upholds his claim for loss of earnings in respect of that overtime.
Furthermore, the Court notes the attempts made by the Claimant to be considered for a transfer back to the Roads Department, however, the commitment to review his situation never took place.
The Court recommends that he should be accommodated with such a transfer at the next available opportunity.
The Court so Recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
LS______________________
15 April 2019Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Louise Shally, Court Secretary.