Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD87962 Case Number: LCR11669 Section / Act: S20(1) Parties: TELECOM EIREANN - and - A WORKER |
Dispute concerning the loss of promotion opportunity due to alteration of a seniority list.
Recommendation:
13. The Court considers that, on the evidence presented, the
claimant was unfairly treated in relation to his seniority and
recommends that the Company find means to redress the situation.
Division: Mr Fitzgerald Mr Heffernan Mr O'Murchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD87962 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR11669
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 20
PARTIES: TELECOM EIREANN
and
A WORKER
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning the loss of promotion opportunity due to
alteration of a seniority list.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker concerned (worker A) and another worker (worker B)
were both recruited as trainee installers on the same date, i.e.
2nd October, 1978.
2. The career progression of the two workers is as follows -
Worker A Worker B
Installer (unestablished) 12th October, 1979 17th October, 1979
Installer (established) 7th May, 1982 10th May, 1982
Nominated T.2 31st October, 1984 31st October, 1984
3. Seniority is determined by date of recruitment, which is taken
to mean first day of employment. In cases where two or more
trainee installers are recruited on the same date, relative
seniority is decided by date of birth. Worker B is older than
Worker A and was therefore senior to worker A as a trainee
installer. The position was reversed in October, 1979. Since
then both workers were successful in the same established
competition and were successfully nominated for promotion to
Technician Class II (T.2) on the same date. The relative
seniority remained the same as they had been as "installer
unestablished".
4. In 1986, 37 vacant Technician Class I (T.1) jointing posts in
Dublin District were advertised. A seniority list of the
successful applicants was drawn up. Worker A was placed above
Worker B. A meeting to nominate successful applicants to fill the
posts was scheduled for 18th March, 1987.
5. Before the meeting the Communications Union of Ireland sought
on behalf of Worker B to have the placings of Worker A and Worker
B on the seniority list reversed. Both workers, while junior on
the list, were in competition for the same vacant post at Santry
Avenue Area Engineering Headquarters.
6. The Union argued that Worker B had been penalised at local
level (Dublin District) on the seniority list because of 15 days
unauthorised absence he had taken due to an industrial dispute in
March, 1979 (details supplied to the Court). A statement of
disagreement on the issue was signed by the representatives of
Dublin District and the Union.
7. In accordance with the grievance procedure the matter was
referred to Headquarters. The Company examined the matter and
found that the position put forward at local level was a departure
from the actual practice for determining the seniority of grades
represented by the Union, i.e. unauthorised absences of short
duration have not affected seniority. The Company decided to
restore Worker B's seniority relative to that of Worker A.
8. The Company subsequently informed Dublin District of its
decision and Worker B was appointed to the vacant position in
Santry.
9. Worker A invoked the Company's Grievance Procedure by letter
dated 11th November, 1987. The Company rejected his complaint by
letter dated 9th December, 1987.
10. Worker A referred the matter to the Labour Court for
investigation and recommendation under Section 20(1) of the
Industrial Relations Act, 1969. The worker agreed to be bound by
the Court's recommendation. A Court hearing was held on 18th
January, 1988.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
11. 1. Worker B was deemed by the Department to have absented
himself without authority for 15 days due to an unofficial
dispute. Neither the Company nor the Union have been able to
produce proof by way of written agreements or otherwise that
unauthorised absences of short duration are counted as
reckonable service.
2. It has always been the practice in the Department of
Posts and Telegraphs and Telecom Eireann that any stoppage,
official or unofficial, constitutes unauthorised absence and
is non reckonable service. Other workers who absented
themselves because of the strike have lost the appropriate
days as "unauthorised absence" or non reckonable service.
3. Whether the Company made a mistake or not in their
decision in 1979, Worker A should not be penalised as he did
nothing wrong. One man has full service the other man has
broken service, it is as simple as that.
4. Worker A believes he has been treated unfairly both by
the Company and his Union, and asks the Court to recommend
that his seniority be restored, and that he be allowed to
take up his promotion post with appropriate retrospection of
payment due.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
12. 1. The key question which arose at the outset was why the
date which had been recorded as Worker B's upgrading to
installer (unestablished) was a later one than that recorded
for Worker A when in the normal course of events the
situation should have been the other way around. The
unauthorised absence of 15 days in March 1979, was the
explanation given locally for this situation.
2. At Company Headquarters the matter was examined and it
was found that the position put forward by local management
was a departure from the actual practice which had operated
within the Company. Unauthorised absences for any reason
which are of short duration have not affected seniority.
3. The Union argued strongly that the Company was inflicting
a "hidden" punishment on Worker B because of his unauthorised
absence in 1979 as there was no precedent for the Company's
action and the Union itself was unaware that this was Company
policy. Research and investigation by the Company failed to
reveal any particular instance where seniority has been
affected as a consequence of unauthorised absence.
4. The Company accepted the Union's contention that it was
totally unaware of the consequences of unauthorised absences
for seniority of Installers. Taking into consideration that,
in all probability, Worker B could not have been aware of the
consequence of his unauthorised absence, the Company decided
to restore the original seniority of Worker B relative to
Worker A.
5. Worker A invoked the Company's Grievance Procedure which
is a well established procedure. The matter was considered
and his complaint was subsequently rejected. The Court is
also asked to reject the complaint.
RECOMMENDATION:
13. The Court considers that, on the evidence presented, the
claimant was unfairly treated in relation to his seniority and
recommends that the Company find means to redress the situation.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
1st February, 1988 Nicholas Fitzgerald
M.D./P.W. Deputy Chairman