FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : SLIGO COUNTY COUNCIL - AND - A WORKER PRESENTED BY IRISH MUNICIPAL, PUBLIC AND CIVIL TRADE UNION) DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Doherty Worker Member: Mr Nash |
1. Appeal against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation R-034226-Ir-05/TB.
BACKGROUND:
2. The case is an appeal by the employer of Rights Commissioner's Recommendation R-034226-ir-05/TB. The dispute concerns an employee of Sligo County Council who was seconded on a contractual basis as a Workplace Partnership Facilitator from 2003 until 31st March, 2005.
On expiry of his contract the worker was assigned to a permanent position consistent with his grade at another location.
The Union's position is that an agreement was reached that would allow an extension of such contracts for 12 months beyond the expiry date to allow for a review of the Facilitator Post to take place at national level and that the worker should have remained in the post until the completion of the review.
Management's position is that it has a right to assign its staff in line with its business needs. It also claims that extending the post for 12 months does not mean that the individuals contract be extended also.
The matter was referred to a Rights Commissioner for investigation and recommendation. His findings and recommendation issued on the 18th August, 2005, as follows:-
"While acknowledging the right of the respondent to assign the claimant to a substantive post in the County Council it seems to me that in the ordinary meaning of language the letter of the 30th of March from the Local Government Management Services Board extending the contracts of Partnership Facilitators for a further 12 months must apply to the claimant.
I, therefore, recommend that the arrangement outlined in the letter of the 30th of March 2005 from the Local Government Management Services Board in respect of the extension of contracts be applied to the claimant".
On the 23rd of September, 2005, the Employer appealed the Rights Commissioner's Recommendation to the Labour Court in accordance with Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 16th November, 2006.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. An agreement was concluded that a review of the post would be carried out but that contracts would be extended in the meantime. This agreement has not been adhered to by Management.
2. Management are in breach of Sustaining Progress as they failed to adhere to the dispute resolution provisions of the Agreement prior to taking action in the matter in dispute.
MANAGEMENT'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Agreement concluded with IMPACT provided for extension of the Facilitator posts, not for the extension of individual contracts.
2. Management reserve the right to assign staff as is necessary having regard to its organisational requirements.
3. Concession of the claim would have serious consequences for local authorities if Management are denied the right to transfer staff as it deems appropriate.
DECISION:
The claim before the Court is an appeal by the County Council of the Rights Commissioner’s decision. The case concerns the Union’s contention that the claimant’s position as Partnership Facilitator should have been extended in line with a letter dated 30th March 2005 from the Local Government Management Services Board (LGMSB). The County Council take the view that this letter extended the post of Partnership Facilitator at national level and not the postholder. It held that in line with Section 159 of the Local Government Act, 2001 the County Manager had the right to reassign him in accordance with organisational requirements. While accepting this right to reassign staff, the Union contended that the County Council had not adhered to a collective agreement agreed between the social partners when it removed the claimant from the position as Partnership Facilitator and reassigned him to the Motor Taxation Section.
Having considered the submissions of both parties, the Court is of the view that the letter from the LGMSB deals with thepostof Partnership Facilitator and not the postholder. While there clearly would have been an expectation that the incumbent would have continued in the post for the extended period, it was not necessarily guaranteed that he would do so. His fixed term contract expired on 31st March 2005.
During the period of his first contract as Partnership Facilitator, the claimant had competed for the post of Administrative Officer G7 and was subsequently appointed to that grade on 8th June 2001. The Court notes that both parties accept that the County Manager had the right to reassign staff in accordance with organisational requirements and the County Council needed to fill a position at Administrative Officer in the Motor Taxation Section. Therefore, as his contract had expired it was reasonable for the County Council to reassign him in accordance with its needs. The County Council also contended that it was custom and practice to rotate personnel between posts to broaden and develop their experience. The Union did not share this contention.
The Court takes the view that the reassignment of the claimant was not a breach of the collective agreement, however, the non-continuation of the Post of Partnership Facilitator may be deemed so.
Therefore, the Court upholds the County Council’s decision to transfer the claimant.
Accordingly, the Court overturns the Rights Commissioner’s Recommendation and the County Councils appeal succeeds.
The Court so decides.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
30th November, 2006______________________
AH/MB.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Andrew Heavey, Court Secretary.