Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD8931 Case Number: AD8916 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: HALLMARK CARDS LIMITED - and - NATIONAL GRAPHICAL ASSOCIATION |
Appeal by the Union against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation No. ST495/55.
Recommendation:
5. The Court finds that the Rights Commissioner was correct in
his view of the Employer's rights under the 1981 Agreement, and in
the view of the Court these rights were in this case exercised in
a correct and reasonable manner. The Court is therefore of the
opinion that the Rights Commissioner's recommendation should stand
and so decides.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr Collins Mr Devine
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD8931 APPEAL DECISION NO. AD1689
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 13(9)
PARTIES: HALLMARK CARDS LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATED UNION OF EMPLOYERS)
and
NATIONAL GRAPHICAL ASSOCIATION
SUBJECT:
1. Appeal by the Union against Rights Commissioner's
Recommendation No. ST495/55.
BACKGROUND:
2. In July, 1988 an advertisement was placed on the Company's
noticeboard for the post of craft I litho virko operator,
following the resignation of the existing operator. On 15th
August, 1988 a craft II letterpress virko operator was appointed
to this position. The Union claims that the Company has not
recognised the skills and technicalities required for lithographic
printing by appointing this operator who is not trained in
lithographic printing. Further, that the appropriate procedure is
to appoint a worker to a craft I litho virko position from a craft
II litho virko position. The Company's position is that the
worker appointed was the most senior suitable worker for the job
and his appointment was made in line with the recruitment and
promotion clause of the in house procedural agreement of 1981.
Local level meetings took place in September, 1988 no agreement
could be reached and on 21st October, 1988 the matter was referred
to a Rights Commissioner for investigation and recommendation. A
Rights Commissioner investigated the dispute on 23rd November,
1988 and issued the following recommendation -
"The Union's fears in relation to the prospect of losing some
of its autonomy are understandable. However on the 1/12/1981
the Union and its six sister Unions signed away some of their
autonomy. Only one Union at that time entered a reservation
(I.G.S. statement re disciplinary procedures) Appendix 3
refers.
In the circumstances I must uphold the integrity of the 1981
Agreement. I do not find on the evidence presented that the
Company exercised its rights under the Agreement in an
unreasonable manner on the occasion.
I recommend that the Union accepts the promotion as made in
accordance with the agreement dated 1/12/1981 as interpreted
since, in respect of promotions."
On 11th January, 1989 the Union appealed the Rights Commissioner's
recommendation to the Labour Court under Section 13(9) of the
Industrial Relations Act, 1969. The Court heard the appeal on
31st January, 1989.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Union accepts the plant agreement at the Company but
cannot accept that a worker not trained in lithographic
printing can be immediately placed into a craft 1 position in
this area. It has been custom and practice for any worker
entering the lithographic department to come in at craft II
and be trained in the area before moving to a craft 1
position.
2. The Company's advertisement for this position stated that
two years printing experience are required. The skills and
technicalities required for lithographic printing are not
reflected in this advertisement. The dispute concerns the
non-recognition by the Company of the skills and
technicalities of lithographic printing and not the
interpretation of the plant agreement which the Rights
Commissioner viewed as the cause of the dispute.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The 1981 procedural agreement clearly sets out managements
rights in relation to recruitment and promotion (details
supplied to the Court). The Union did not raise reservations
about it at the time and none of the other signatory unions
have objected to the promotion practices operated by the
Company. The custom and practice has been that there is free
movement of promoted workers within the plant and no
significance is attached to union affiliation.
2. The practice for the last seven years is that applicants
are interviewed in order of seniority and a worker is selected
based on ability and suitability. Advertisements for such
vacancies include a requirement for previous experience
depending on production needs at that time. No agreement
exists which states that promotion from craft 11 to craft 1
is automatic or guaranteed in this or any other department.
This continuing dispute has adversely affected the Company and
its capacity to meet its commitments. The integrity of the
plant agreement has been respected by both the Company and the
unions since 1981. To concede the Union's claim would ignore
the fact that the terms of the agreement cannot be changed
without full discussion and agreement by all parties.
DECISION:
5. The Court finds that the Rights Commissioner was correct in
his view of the Employer's rights under the 1981 Agreement, and in
the view of the Court these rights were in this case exercised in
a correct and reasonable manner. The Court is therefore of the
opinion that the Rights Commissioner's recommendation should stand
and so decides.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
______________________
23rd February, 1989 Deputy Chairman.
U.M./J.C.