Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD88847 Case Number: LCR12148 Section / Act: S67 Parties: IRISH SHELL LIMITED - and - IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION |
Dispute concerning the Company's proposal to revise the current promotional policy.
Recommendation:
9. In light of the changes of work practice and the reduction in
the numbers employed by the Company the Court is of the opinion
that policy of reserving promotional positions to particular
groups of staff is no longer equitable nor is it suited to current
conditions. The Court therefore recommends that the Company wide
Promotional Policy proposed by the Company should be accepted by
the workers concerned.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr McHenry Mr O'Murchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD88847 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12148
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: IRISH SHELL LIMITED
and
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning the Company's proposal to revise the
current promotional policy.
BACKGROUND:
2. Prior to 1974 all vacancies which arose were open to all
employees. In 1974, following lengthy negotiations, an agreed
policy document on promotion was reached between the parties and
has operated ever since. The Promotion Document (copy of which
supplied to the Court) provides for certain designated promotional
outlets proper to both groups of workers, i.e. operational
supervisory posts were filled by driver and operative grades only
and other supervisory posts confined to grade staff.
3. The Company consider that because of the major changes which
have taken place over the years due to rationalisation (staff
members reduced from 500 to 200, major changes in work practices
etc.) there is a need to review the Promotional Document. As a
result of the rationalisation some supervisory grades have changed
or no longer exist.
4. Negotiations on the review first commenced in 1984 and
continued intermittently between then and 1988. The Company
propose to replace the Promotional Document with the following:-
"Company policy is to endeavour in the first instance to
fill any vacancy or promotional opportunity which may arise
from time to time from within the Company and on the basis of
suitability and merit. Service and seniority will, of
course, be taken into consideration and other things being
equal may well be decisive."
5. The No. 1 Branch of the Union (representing the
operative/driver staff) object to the proposed change on the basis
that it will further reduce their members limited promotional
opportunities. The No. 2 Branch of the Union (representing the
salaried staff) contend that the present Document should be either
retained in its entirety or abandoned completely and is not in
favour of any modification whatsoever. As no agreement was
possible the matter was referred to the conciliation service of
the Labour Court on 23rd March, 1987. Conciliation conferences
were held on 13th April, 1987 and 2nd November, 1988. As the
parties were unable to reach agreement they consented to a
referral to the Labour Court for investigation and recommendation.
A Court hearing was held on 10th November, 1988.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
6. 1. The Company believes that the original policy is unsuited
to to-days conditions and discriminates against large sections
of its workforce.
2. As numbers become smaller the degree of specialisation in
one aspect of supervision will diminish and a broader based
"composite" role will be required. In this context a mix of
people from operational and administrative backgrounds would
provide the necessary expertise to handle todays wider ranging
supervisory role.
3. The Company had demonstrated that it does not intend to
exclude any person from advancement opportunities by training
and appointing seven weekly paid staff to clerical duties in
the past year. Further promotions are open to these staff in
the future on the basis of suitability and merit.
4. Two promotional appointments are in abeyance in our
Limerick Terminal at present pending resolution of this
matter. The situation there could lead to further problems
and must be resolved without further delay.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS (NO. 1 BRANCH):
7. 1. The Company's proposed changes will seriously limit the
workers' concerned promotional opportunities and could have a
detrimental effect on their earnings potential.
2. Because of the reduction in staff numbers over the years
the supervisory posts have also been restricted.
3. It is understood that the Company intend to amalgamate the
duties of operational supervisors with that of shipping
supervisors, which will further reduce the number of
opportunities for the future. The Company's proposal to
permit all grades to apply for these new supervisory positions
coupled with the introduction of computerisation will put the
workers here concerned at a distinct disadvantage as grades
other than driver/operative staff as part of their normal
work, operate and are acquainted with the computer and its
systems.
4. The Court is asked to recommend, given the above
circumstances, that vacancies arising in the operational
supervisory areas be confined to workers in the
driver/operative grades.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS (NO. 2 BRANCH):
8. 1. Our members never sought to have the Promotional Policy
Document introduced and would have preferred to see all staff
being allowed to fill all vacancies on merit alone. However
having said that, we were not unsympathetic to the fears real
or imaginary, of our operative colleagues.
2. Management have initiated these negotiations with the
stated intention at one stage of modifying the Document but
ultimately their position was that they wish to cancel the
Document totally. Our concern in the matter is and will
remain that nothing should be done to upset the delicate
balance that is enshrined in the Document. It is either
retained in its entirety or cancelled altogether; it should
not be doctored or modified. If any segment of staff is to
retain its exclusive rights to certain promotional outlets
then we must equally reserve our rights.
RECOMMENDATION:
9. In light of the changes of work practice and the reduction in
the numbers employed by the Company the Court is of the opinion
that policy of reserving promotional positions to particular
groups of staff is no longer equitable nor is it suited to current
conditions. The Court therefore recommends that the Company wide
Promotional Policy proposed by the Company should be accepted by
the workers concerned.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
_____________________
1st December, 1988. Deputy Chairman
M.D/J.C.