Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD88778 Case Number: LCR12140 Section / Act: S67 Parties: DUBLIN PORT & DOCKS BOARD - and - FEDERATED WORKERS UNION OF IRELAND;IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS UNION |
Selection of trainee cranemen.
Recommendation:
5. The Court, having considered the submissions made by the
parties, recommends that in settlement of the present dispute, the
proposals put forward at conciliation, with the last paragraph
amended to provide that seniority should be taken into account in
determining suitability for the post, should be accepted by both
parties.
The Court also recommends that the parties should discuss the
procedural arrangements that should apply for future appointments.
If necessary, the Court will provide the services of an Industrial
Relations Officer to assist in such discussions.
Division: Mr Fitzgerald Mr Heffernan Mr Devine
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD88778 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12140
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: DUBLIN PORT & DOCKS BOARD
and
FEDERATED WORKERS UNION OF IRELAND
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Selection of trainee cranemen.
BACKGROUND:
2. In April, 1988, management sought applications from general
workers for two positions as trainee/probationary cranemen.
Applicants were required to be between 21 and 30 years of age.
Successful applicants would have to undergo a training period of
at least twelve months, following which they would act as
probationary cranemen for two years. The closing date for
applications was 6th May, 1988. The workers objected to the age
qualification and this was extended up to 35 years. The closing
date for applications was extended to 26th May, 1988. Fourteen
people applied and selection was by means of interview. Of the
fourteen, eight applicants had one year's service, two had eleven
years' service and the remaining four applicants had five, seven,
fourteen and seventeen years service respectively. In June, three
of the applicants were chosen, two of these had one year's service
while the third was the applicant with seventeen years service.
The workers were dissatisfied with this result on the basis that
management had not taken sufficient account of seniority in the
selection process. Meetings with management took place in July
but agreement was not reached. On 13th July, 1988 the matter was
referred to the conciliation service of the Labour Court. Labour
Court conciliation conferences took place on 4th August, 1988 and
15th August, 1988, arising from which the following settlement
proposal emerged:
"In addition to the 3 already selected, 4 more people will be
appointed to the panel on the basis of suitability. All 7
will then be assessed.
When the assessment is completed, the Board will appoint 2
people at its discretion. 2 more will then be appointed on
the basis of seniority. The remaining 3 people will remain
on the panel and may aspire to the position of trainee
craneman on the basis of their seniority on the panel.
The Board wishes to reiterate its position that selection for
promotion is on the basis of suitability, with regard to
seniority when all other factors are equal."
The proposal was acceptable to management but was not acceptable
to the workers. The matter was referred to the Labour Court on
17th October, 1988 and a Court hearing took place on 16th
November, 1988.
UNIONS' ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The workers consider that little credit, if any, was
afforded to candidates on the basis of seniority. The Board
has said that the selection process was the same as that used
over the past ten years. However, in the past, such selection
was never perceived by the workers as being "unfair" whereas,
in this instances, that is the case. 95% of workers have more
than eight years service. Yet, of the three successful
candidates, two had less than two years' service. The workers
consider that the outcome of the interview process was not
unrelated to the dispute concerning age qualifications.
2. The proposal which emerged from conciliation talks was
rejected because it would preserve the existing system. The
final paragraph indicates that seniority is taken into account
only in cases where there is a tie between candidates. To
accept the proposal would also mean acceptance of the decision
in relation to the two candidates with less than two years
service. This is not acceptable to the workers.
3. Management has said that crane operators must possess
certain natural skills such as dexterity, etc., which the
Union does not deny. However, the Union questions whether
such skills can be determined by means of an interview. In
addition, there is a long period of assessment, training and
probation for any successful candidate which means that the
Board's interests are more than adequately protected, should a
successful candidate subsequently prove to be unsuitable.
4. The Unions are not questioning management's right to
manage. However, management also has obligations towards its
employees, such as serving the workers reasonable aspirations
towards promotion.
5. The Unions believe that the best interests of all would be
served by selecting candidates for assessment on the basis of
seniority, subject to satisfactory service.
BOARD'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The interviews were carried out in a fair and objective
manner. The applicants were questioned with a view to
assessing their general suitability, aptitude and interest in
the positions. The procedure used was the same as that used
on previous occasions. Neither the Unions nor the applicants
complained about the procedures of the interview board until
the results were announced. Those selected are, in the
opinion of the interview board, the most suitable persons for
the positions. The Board cannot accept that the opinion of a
third party can be substituted for the judgement of the
interview board. Nor is the Board prepared to tell the
successful candidates that they cannot be offered the
positions because their selection is not acceptable to the
Unions.
2. The Unions have claimed that seniority should be the sole
determining factor in selecting trainee cranemen. The Board
has always maintained that seniority is only one factor to be
considered and that in situations where all other factors are
equal, seniority is to be used to decide the final selection.
3. The Board believes that the settlement proposals made at
conciliation represent a fair and reasonable basis for
resolving the matter.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court, having considered the submissions made by the
parties, recommends that in settlement of the present dispute, the
proposals put forward at conciliation, with the last paragraph
amended to provide that seniority should be taken into account in
determining suitability for the post, should be accepted by both
parties.
The Court also recommends that the parties should discuss the
procedural arrangements that should apply for future appointments.
If necessary, the Court will provide the services of an Industrial
Relations Officer to assist in such discussions.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Nicholas Fitzgerald
________________________
28th November, 1988 Deputy Chairman.
A.K./J.C.