Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD88356 Case Number: LCR11901 Section / Act: S67 Parties: MURPHY BREWERY IRELAND LIMITED - and - IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION |
Dispute concerning the filling of promotional positions.
Recommendation:
6. The Court, having considered the submissions made by the
parties, accepts that there is a perception on the part of the
workforce that sufficient weighting was not given to seniority of
service in the making of the appointments in dispute. On the
other hand, Management claims that it acted fairly in accordance
with the promotions clause of the previous Company/Union
Agreement. The Court is of the view that this type of
disagreement can best be avoided for the future by the
implementation of the three provisions outlined at paragraph 16 of
the Union submission to the Court. In all the circumstances of
the case, the Court recommends that the four appointments should
be proceeded with as envisaged by the Company.
Division: Mr Fitzgerald Mr Heffernan Mr O'Murchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD88356 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR11901
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: MURPHY BREWERY IRELAND LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATED UNION OF EMPLOYERS)
and
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning the filling of promotional positions.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company was established in 1983 when Heineken BV purchased
the total assets of James J. Murphy and Company Limited which was
then in receivership.
3. A dispute arose between Management and the Union concerning
the filling of positions of Utility Operator, Assistant Masher and
Draft Beer Service. The Union argued that the most senior
applicants were unsuccessful and that Management ignored the issue
of seniority in selecting the individuals for the positions. This
is denied by the Company. Local level discussions failed to
resolve the issue and on the 13th April, 1988, it was referred to
the conciliation service of the Labour Court. A conciliation
conference held on the 28th April failed to resolve the dispute
but Management agreed to a Union request to withhold placement of
the appointees for a further week until a general meeting of its
members had the opportunity of discussing the issue. Following
the general meeting it was agreed by the two sides to refer the
case to the Labour Court for investigation and recommendation. A
Court hearing was held on the 20th May, 1988.
Note: Due to operational difficulties the Company, as of the date
of the Court hearing, had not placed the successful applicants in
their positions.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. In the treatment of the senior applicants for the
positions of Utility Operator and Assistant Masher, the
element of seniority was given no priority whatever. When the
Union challenged the filling of the post of Utility Operator
it was formally informed by Management that there was
literally nothing to choose between the two final candidates
and that the decision was very difficult to make. There may
have been nothing between them in terms of competence etc. but
there certainly was in terms of service; one was the senior
applicant with seven years' service and the other (the
successful candidate) had one year's service.
2. In Draft Beer Service both jobs were originally envisaged
as short-term temporary positions and as Management will
freely admit, were filled at the time by reference to pure
expediency, one by transfer (over twelve months ago) from
another sector of the Brewery operation outside of the
production grading structure, for a period of ten weeks, and
the other by recruitment from outside on a temporary contract
basis. Senior permanent employees from within the production
area, although acceptable by Management as suitable at that
time, were not considered because of the transitory nature of
the positions. However, in the final analysis, the post
holders were the personnel appointed when the positions were
made permanent and had become promotional opportunities twelve
months later. Claims from permanent staff from within the
grading structure, particularly those with long service, who
could not be spared originally for transfer to the temporary
posts, were basically ignored.
3. The application of the principle of seniority in job
placement between grades (the central issue in this dispute)
is firmly established. Seniority as an important factor in
determining promotional appointments, has been widely
practiced down the years and is very definitely the perception
and expectation of the production workforce. Furthermore, at
no stage were any of the claimants ever given reason to expect
that their performance at work was such as might in any way
impair their promotional entitlements.
4. There are no agreed criteria in existence at present on
promotions. The previous Agreement terminated in February,
1987, and its replacement is still being negotiated.
4. 5. Many of the mistakes which have created this dispute are
acknowledged by Management in that:
(a) for the future, all temporary employment will be
strictly fixed term.
(b) a programme of inter job training and familiarisation
will be discussed as part of the proposed replacement
Agreement.
(c) performance and appraisal proposals will be discussed
with a view to their introduction by agreement with the
Union.
6. It is difficult, therefore, to understand the ambiguity of
a Company prepared to redress its mistakes which allowed this
dispute to fester, whilst, at the same time, doing nothing to
rectify the wrongs which those same mistakes have directly
perpetrated on four employees whose commitment and loyalty
helped, in a small measure, to rescue the Company from the
brink and ruin of insolvency just a little more than four
years ago.
7. There is already a priority requirement on the Company to
resolve the grievance of the workers disadvantaged by the
Company's handling of this issue.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
5. 1. Since 1983 the Company has, with the co-operation and
effort of all concerned together with the investment capital
of some £20M provided by Heineken, come to be successful and
now employs 240 employees. During the five years since April,
1983 the Company has found it possible to make many
appointments to higher graded positions. Up to 31st December,
1987 the following recruitments/promotions took place:
A B C
Promotion of Temporary to External
Permanent Permanent Recruitment
Employees
Production
& General 38 23 -
Sales Area 8 1 25
Total 46 24 25
1988 (All Areas) 11 11 13
5. 2. A further 12 positions have already been advertised and a
further 7 will be advertised in the near future. Of the 57
appointments to more senior graded positions since 1983 the
most senior applicant was appointed in 11 cases.
3. In all of the appointments the Company has always taken
the view that the person to be appointed should be the best
person for the particular position being filled. Seniority
was always considered but was never the over-riding
consideration. If the Company is to continue to succeed it
must have the right to select employees for available
vacancies on the basis that the most suitable applicant should
get the appointment.
4. When the present difficulties arose the Company agreed to
withhold the placement of three appointed people (details
supplied to the Court) to their positions until the issue had
been referred to a third party despite the fact that these
people had already received their letters of appointment and
that the Company is in the meantime functioning at less than
100% because of this delay.
RECOMMENDATION:
6. The Court, having considered the submissions made by the
parties, accepts that there is a perception on the part of the
workforce that sufficient weighting was not given to seniority of
service in the making of the appointments in dispute. On the
other hand, Management claims that it acted fairly in accordance
with the promotions clause of the previous Company/Union
Agreement. The Court is of the view that this type of
disagreement can best be avoided for the future by the
implementation of the three provisions outlined at paragraph 16 of
the Union submission to the Court. In all the circumstances of
the case, the Court recommends that the four appointments should
be proceeded with as envisaged by the Company.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Nicholas Fitzgerald
________________________
16th June, 1988. Deputy Chairman
D.H./J.C.