Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD87455 Case Number: LCR11440 Section / Act: S67 Parties: AUGHINISH ALUMINA LTD. - and - ITGWU |
Dispute concerning the failure of a worker to be appointed to the standby panel of control room operators.
Recommendation:
5. The Court is satisfied that the Company has not acted in an
unreasonable manner and accordingly does not recommend concession
of the claim.
Division: Ms Owens Mr McHenry Mr O'Murchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD87455 THE LABOUR COURT LCR11440
CC861504 INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR11440
Parties: AUGHINISH ALUMINA LIMITED
and
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
Subject:
1. Dispute concerning the failure of a worker to be appointed to
the standby panel of control room operators.
Background:
2. The worker concerned in this case has been employed by
the Company as a grade 3 boiler house operator since 1983. He
applied for selection for the control room operators' standby
panel, on the grounds that he was a qualified electrician, had
previous experience on control panel in the E.S.B., and has a
degree from the University of Illinois. The worker was given a
total of 15 months training and induction, but was not selected.
The Union is claiming that the Company is discriminating against
the worker, bearing in mind that he is both qualified generally
and qualified for the particular position. It contends that the
worker should be placed on the standby panel.
The Company contends that the worker is unsuitable for placing on
the particular standby, despite his qualifications, because -
(1) He has regularly been assessed, by a number of
supervisors, and not found to be up to standard.
(2) There are a limited number of vacancies and others have
proved to have more aptitude for the job.
(3) He was given every chance over 15 months, where
suitable applicants are normally placed on the panel
after 6 months. He was persisted with because of his
E.S.B. experience.
(4) The Company is operating the terms of the Company/Union
Agreement fairly and as per usual.
Agreement could not be reached on the matter at local level, and
the matter was originally submitted to the conciliation service of
the Labour Court in September, 1986. The matter was then
postponed and resubmitted in March, 1987. A conciliation
conference took place on 23rd April, 1987. Agreement was not
reached, and on 8th June, 1987, the matter was referred to the
Labour Court for investigation and recommendation. A Court
hearing took place in Limerick on 2nd September, 1987.
Union's arguments:
3. (i) As a general rule, the Union does not become involved
in arguments concerning promotion within the Company,
on the grounds that disappointed candidates for
production are apt to accuse the Company of
discrimination. However, the Union has in the past had
occasion to express its concern at the manner in which
the Company has conducted itself in appointing
employees to promotional vacancies. It has not enjoyed
much satisfaction in this area however.
(ii) In the opinion of the Union, this worker has been
actively discriminated against. Clause 14 states:
"Promotion will be at the sole discretion of the
Company and will be based on ability and
suitability. Seniority shall rule, all other
things being equal. Promoted employees will be
paid the appropriate rate for the job."
During the course of the initial negotiations on the
Company/Union agreement, we agreed to accept this
clause as it is written, in part because of historical
precedent, but more importantly, because the Company
assured us that it would be applied with integrity.
(iii) If we look at how the clause was applied to the worker
we can make the following comments....
- SENIORITY: Employees with less service than him
have been promoted to the standby
panel.
- SUITABILITY: We deem this to refer to his general
disposition, his ability to relate
to his fellow employees. Since he was
acceptable to the Company as an
employee, served a satisfactory
probationary period, continues to do
his job as a boiler house operator, we
consider his suitability to be
established.
- ABILITY: The Company have charged that since
the worker did not come up to the
standard required for a standby
control room operator despite
extending his training period, they
were not prepared to appoint him. The
worker was given 6 weeks
familiarisation on the boiler house
control panel, this was done under the
direct supervision of a control room
operator. Over the next 18 months he
carried out unsupervised duties as a
control room operator.
(iv) If it was a simple case of an employee being introduced
to a control panel without any previous experience and
the employer deciding that he was not suitable, then it
would have to be accepted that he did not meet the
standard and no other view would be sustainable.
However, in this case, it is not that simple. The
worker is more than qualified to act in the capacity
for which he has been deemed not up to the standard and
this is acknowledging that the Company requires no
previous qualifications or experience for control room
operators.
(v) As part of his degree course with the University of
Illinois, the worker studied engineering for 2 years.
He attended the College of Technology, Bolton St.,
Dublin, and successfully completed a City and Guilds
certificated course on a 17 MW unit with Brown Boveri,
condensing turbine and a B.B.C. Velox pressurised
combustion, forced circulation fuel oil fired boiler
rated at 165,000 LB/H (details supplied to the Court).
(vi) The worker completed an apprenticeship with the
E.S.B. as an electrician and subsequently worked for
them as a qualified tradesman. On the practical side,
he has operated control panels for a limited period in
the following power stations:-
Gweedore, Ardnacrusha, Inniscarra, Caherciveen, Miltown
Malbay, Shannonbridge. In addition, he operated a
control panel for 5 years at the Northwall station.
(vii) The Union are deeply concerned at the Company's failure
to produce substantial reasons for its refusal to place
the worker on the standby panel for the control panel
for the control room. It requests the Court to
recommend that he be so appointed.
Company's arguments:
4. (a) It is a function of management to assess and select
employees for promotion. This is explicitly recognised
and agreed under Article 14 of the Company/Union
comprehensive procedural agreement.
(b) Operators with no previous industrial/process
experience have become fully competent to operate the
panel after three to four hundred hours training. The
worker failed to become competent at this job after the
extensive training he received between April and
September, 1984. Despite further training in the
period March to October, 1985 the worker did not become
competent in the operation of the control panel.
It is obvious that the worker has received every
training opportunity which could reasonably be afforded
to him but did not make the grade.
(c) The Union claimed at conciliation that the worker's
work experience and educational qualification make him
an ideal candidate for the job. The critical argument
is whether the worker can do the job safely and
efficiently. The fact that he has or has not acquired
certain qualifications is not material in this case.
Qualifications of themselves do not indicate an ability
to perform the job in question. The ability,
temperament, and application of the individual are the
relevant factors.
(d) The control room training provided by the Company has
succeeded in providing more than 60 operators who are
competent to operate the various control panels on the
plant. This is the only grievance of this nature which
we have received. The Company persevered with the
workers' control room training to a greater degree than
it has with any other employee, specifically because of
his background with the E.S.B. The unfortunate fact is
that he did not achieve the required standard. Since
his training ceased, other employees have, with less
training, become competent in the operation of the
boilerhouse control room. This vindicates the
Company's training programme. The Court is
respectfully requested to find in the Companys favour.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court is satisfied that the Company has not acted in an
unreasonable manner and accordingly does not recommend concession
of the claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
______________________
Evelyn Owens
Deputy Chairman
September, 1987
P.F./J.C.