Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD87473 Case Number: LCR11340 Section / Act: S67 Parties: IRISH CEMENT LTD - and - ITGWU |
The appointment of a craftsman to a '3 in 1' position.
Recommendation:
5. The Court, having considered the submissions made by the
parties, considers that the Company are entitled to select the
best worker for the three in one position, regardless of category.
However there appears to have been some understanding among the
workers that this position would be filled by a general operative
although there was no formal agreement to this effect. The
history of appointments since 1983 gave some grounds for this
understanding.
In the circumstances the Court recommends that
(i) the Company should give a commitment to the Union that
at least 50% of all future vacancies will be filled by
applicants from the general/clerical workforce
(ii) the Union, for its part, should accept and co-operate
with the present holder of the job in dispute.
Division: Mr Fitzgerald Mr Heffernan Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD87473 THE LABOUR COURT LCR11340
CC87870 INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
RECOMMENDATION NO. 11340
PARTIES: IRISH CEMENT LIMITED
and
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
Subject:
1. The appointment of a craftsman to a '3 in 1' position.
Background:
2. The Company recently internally advertised a "3 in 1" shift
position. This position involves providing relief supervision in
three areas; shift control, process control and laboratory. The
permanent post of shift control supervisor has in the past been
performed by craft and non-craft workers. Permanent posts in
process control and the laboratory have always been carried out by
non-craft workers. The "3 in 1" post, since its inception in
1983, has been filled by 5 different individuals, all non-craft
workers. Both craft and non-craft workers applied for the vacant
"3 in 1" job. It came to the Union's attention that a particular
craftsman had been invited to apply and the Union complained to
the Company that the job was traditionally a promotional outlet
for the non-craft workers and that the appointment of craftsmen
would cause a dispute. The particular craftsman named by the
Union was appointed by the Company to the "3 in 1" position. The
Union disputed his appointment and is refusing to train him in
process control and laboratory work. Meetings held at local level
failed to resolve the dispute and the matter was referred, on 3rd
June, 1987, to the conciliation service of the Labour Court. A
conciliation conference was held on 9th June, 1987 but, again, no
agreement was reached and the matter was referred to a full
hearing of the Labour Court. The hearing took place on 8th July,
1987, in Limerick.
Union's arguments:
3. (i) The appointment of a craftsman to the "3 in 1"
position is outside normal accepted practices which
have always operated in the Company.
(ii) The position in question is one of the few
opportunities for a general worker to improve his
financial situation.
(iii) Because of the ongoing redundancy situation at the
plant, this promotion is likely to result in one
additional general worker becoming unemployed.
(iv) The Union considers that management should not have
encouraged the craftsman who subsequently obtained the
position to apply for it.
(v) General workers have never encroached upon craft
workers' work in the Company.
Company's arguments:
4. (a) This an important position with significant
supervisory responsibility. This is reflected in the
salary which is 22% greater than the craftsman's rate
and 36% greater than the process operators' rate. It
is vital, therefore, that the most suitable person is
appointed regardless of whether that person is from
the clerical, craft or general worker area, or from
outside the Company. Since it came into existence in
1983, the natural progression from this position has
been to the position of Shift Supervisor.
(b) There are significant maintenance requirements where
the engineering skills of a craftsman are of
particular value. Since 1972 three craftsmen have
been appointed Shift Supervisors.
(c) The Company considers that appointments to the "3 in
1" job cannot be the exclusive preserve of any
particular group.
(d) The Company rejects any suggestion that it treated
I.T.G.W.U. members in a discriminatory way. The fact
that of 19 promotional opportunities that have arisen
since 1984, 17 have been from this Union membership
bears this out.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court, having considered the submissions made by the
parties, considers that the Company are entitled to select the
best worker for the three in one position, regardless of category.
However there appears to have been some understanding among the
workers that this position would be filled by a general operative
although there was no formal agreement to this effect. The
history of appointments since 1983 gave some grounds for this
understanding.
In the circumstances the Court recommends that
(i) the Company should give a commitment to the Union that
at least 50% of all future vacancies will be filled by
applicants from the general/clerical workforce
(ii) the Union, for its part, should accept and co-operate
with the present holder of the job in dispute.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
27th July, 1987 Nicholas Fitzgerald
A.K./P.W. Deputy Chairman