Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD86924 Case Number: LCR10949 Section / Act: S20(1) Parties: AN POST - and - CIVIL SERVICE EXECUTIVE UNION |
Suitability for promotion of a worker.
Recommendation:
5. The Court, having considered the submissions made by the
parties, is of the view that, given the criteria for promotion
currently in operation in the organisation, management have not
acted unreasonably in this case. The Court, accordingly, does not
recommend concession of the worker's claim.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Nicholas Fitzgerald
29th January, 1987 -------------------
P.F./U.S. Deputy Chairman
Division: Mr Fitzgerald Mr Collins Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD86924 THE LABOUR COURT LCR10949
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR10949
Parties: AN POST
and
CIVIL SERVICE EXECUTIVE UNION
Subject:
1. Suitability for promotion of a worker.
Background:
2. The worker concerned in this case is a Higher Executive
Officer employed by An Post. He has been a Higher Executive
Officer since 4th October, 1978, and previously served in other
positions within the Company. The worker is the senior member of
his grade in the Company. A number of personnel who were junior
to him in the same grade have been promoted. On 5th March, 1984,
the worker discussed his position in the Company as regards
promotion with the Head of Personnel. The Company subsequently
wrote to the worker in the matter at his request on 22nd June,
1984 pointing out that he was not considered unsatisfactory as a
Higher Executive Officer. He was informed that the more junior
officers who had secured promotion were considered better
qualified, and that, although he would continue to be considered
for promotion, it seemed likely to the Company that there would be better qualif
consequently it was unlikely that he would be promoted. The
Company provided the worker with an assessment of his work
performance (copy with Court). The worker could not accept the
assessments made of his performance, and on 22nd January, 1985, he
sought written evidence of the incidents which had been referred
to in the assessments made. The Company stated that this could
not be provided as the assessments related to the workers position
relative to others. The worker discussed the matter again with
the Company on 17th October, 1985, with a view to obtaining the
evidence he had sought, but as this was not forthcoming he agreed
that no purpose would be served by discussing the matter further
with An Post.
An attempt by the Union to refer the matter to a Rights
Commissioner was objected to by the Company. On 21st November,
1986, the matter was referred to the Labour Court for
investigation and recommendation under Section 20(1) of the
Industrial Relations Act, 1969. The Union's claim is that the
worker should be provided with details of the incidents which led
to the Company's assessments of his performance and capabilities.
The Union contends that if the Company is unable to provide
instances of such events, then as the senior member of his grade,
the worker should be appointed to the next Assistant Principal
vacancy which arises in the Company. A Court hearing took place
in Dublin on 8th January, 1986.
Union's arguments:
3. (i) While accepting that the views of the Company on the
suitability for promotion would not have been judged on
isolated incidents or taken lightly, the worker was not
aware of any incidents which had occurred on the lines
outlined to him. He had not been advised previously
either in writing or verbally of any incidents which
would have given rise to the assessments made.
(ii) As the Company cannot or will not provide instances of
events which gave rise to the assessments made of him,
he does not know if the assessments can even be
justified.
Company's arguments:
4. (a) The worker is not regarded as unsatisfactory as a
Higher Executive Officer. He is a well disposed loyal
and trustworthy officer who applies himself
conscientiously to his work. The officers who were
promoted to Assistant Principal were considered better
qualified than the worker concerned, that is the basic
reason why he has not been promoted. While it seems
that there will be better qualified candidates
available for the foreseeable future, the Company does
not preclude the possibility of being mistaken, or that
circumstances might change. The worker will continue
to be considered for promotion.
(b) In promoting people to Assistant Principal, which is a
senior management grade, the Company does not judge
against some absolute standard but by comparison with
the general standard set by other members of the grades
from time to time. It is mainly a question of relative
ability depending on the quality of personnel in the
Higher Executive and Assistant Principal grades from
time to time.
(c) There is no absolute measure of judgement, inititiative
or various other abilities or qualities. Standards
vary from time to time. The assessment of the worker's
performance which was given to him on 22nd June, 1984,
represented the consensus view of those who had
experience of his work over the years. It was intended
for guidance to help him focus on the problem areas,
and to aid in improvement in those areas. Because the
Company is operating with standards which are variable
depending on the quality of the personnel in the grades
from time to time, it is not possible to provide the
worker with the evidence which he is seeking for his
being passed over.
(d) Promotion within An Post is on the basis of merit
having due regard to seniority. Assessment forms are
circulated on a regular basis and in the cases of
Higher Executive Officers are completed by the Head of
Function and cleared through an Assistant Chief
Executive. When vacancies are being filled a meeting
of all Heads of Functions chaired by the Assistant
Chief Executive is held. At this meeting those
eligible for promotion are discussed in the light of
the assessment forms. All attending the meeting who
have had direct experience of the officer under
discussion will give their opinions. In this way, a
consensus is arrived at and the promotions are
submitted to the Chief Executive for approval.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court, having considered the submissions made by the
parties, is of the view that, given the criteria for promotion
currently in operation in the organisation, management have not
acted unreasonably in this case. The Court, accordingly, does not
recommend concession of the worker's claim.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Nicholas Fitzgerald
29th January, 1987 -------------------
P.F./U.S. Deputy Chairman