Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD88903 Case Number: LCR12217 Section / Act: S67 Parties: DEPARTMENT OF DEFENCE - and - MANUFACTURING SCIENCE AND FINANCE |
Promotional outlets for draughtsmen.
Recommendation:
5. In view of the Department's proposals for restructuring in the
Engineering Directorate and the fact that decisions on the
proposals are expected within three months, the Court is of the
view that the Union should accept the Department's offer of one
position of Principal Technician in the Directorate to be filled
by internal competition. Once the Directorate Planning and Design
team is agreed, the parties should negotiate the structure of the
Command Planning and Design Teams and the criteria for
establishing Principal Technician positions.
The Court is of the view that service should be a deciding factor
in selection for Principal Technician positions only when other
appropriate requirements are clearly equal.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Heffernan Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD88903 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12217
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: DEPARTMENT OF DEFENCE
AND
MANUFACTURING SCIENCE AND FINANCE
SUBJECT:
1. Promotional outlets for draughtsmen.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Union sought to maintain a similar proportion of
promotional outlets as compared with the Office of Public Works,
(O.P.W.) in line with Labour Court Recommendation 7105. In the
O.P.W. promotional outlets are 50% of the basic grade, and
promotions are based on seniority. When the matter was raised at
local level, there was agreement to conduct a joint
Union/Department of Defence assessment. The Union nominated a
member of the Advisory Service of the Irish Congress of Trade
Unions (ICTU). (Details supplied to the Court). An agreed report
was not achieved, but it was agreed that where there were five
draughtsmen, (as is now the case) there should be a promotional
outlet for 1 principal draughtsperson. The Union claims that
there should be posts for two principal draughtspersons, and that
these appointments should be made on the basis of seniority.
Agreement could not be reached on the matter at local level, and
on 19th April, 1988, the matter was referred to the conciliation
service of the Labour Court. A conciliation conference took place
on 27th May, 1988. No agreement was reached, and on 24th
November, 1988, the matter was referred to the Labour Court for
investigation and recommendation. A Court hearing took place in
Dublin on 5th January, 1989.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. In LCR7105 the Court recommended a similar proportion of
promotional outlets for the Department of Defence as exists in
the O.P.W. On the basis that the ratio is 1:1 in the O.P.W.,
this would mean two positions for principal draughtspersons in
the Department of Defence. The manner in which these posts
are filled in the O.P.W. is through seniority of service.
3. 2. The position of the Department was that there should be
one post and that it should be based at McKee Barracks. The
ICTU advisor has stated inter alia in the assessment, "in our
view there is no fundamental difference between the functions
performed at McKee and in the commands, if anything, there is
more responsibility directly outside of McKee." The ICTU
advisor went on to recommend:
" The job descriptions also show that filling the
promotional outlets on the basis of seniority is
perfectly feasible as the service is staffed by
trained and competent professionals who have proven
themselves in practice. We, for our part, see no
reason why the proportion of promotional outlets which
exists in the Office of Public Works should not apply,
and consider seniority to be a suitable vehicle for
filling such posts."
3. The Union believes that there should be two posts of
senior draughtspersons, and that these should be filled
forthwith on the basis of seniority. The Union asks the Court
to so recommend.
DEPARTMENT'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. Events and decisions in O.P.W. are not binding on the
Department of Defence as the structures in both areas are very
distinct. Seniority cannot be the sole criterion for
promotion as account must be taken of suitability and other
factors.
2. The Department has tried very hard in difficult
circumstances to meet the Union's claim as far as is possible
but it will not seek sanction for the creation of spurious
posts. A post of principal draughtsperson was offered to the
Union in June, 1983, but was rejected and is now embargoed,
thus depriving an individual of promotion and an increase of
over #1,000 per annum.
3. Since 1985 the military authorities have been trying to
establish a structure in the Directorate of Engineering in
which both military and civilians would be part of a planning
and design team. To that end, professional, technical and
clerical staff have been engaged on a contract basis and it is
hoped that at least some of the civilian team will be retained
in the Department when their contracts expire early this year.
A similar but more tenuous position obtains in the Eastern
Command as recent Government decisions are likely to affect
that area in the short term.
4. 4. Under Defence Force Regulation S.5 the numbers and grades
of civilian employees shall be as determined from time to time
by the Minister for Defence with the consent of the Minister
for Finance. The Department is prepared to seek sanction for
the filling of a post of Principal Architectural Technician in
the Directorate of Engineering and to seek sanction for the
creation of additional posts as the need arises.
5. The Department of Defence asks the Court to reject the
claim as outlined by the Union and to accept the Department's
proposals as outlined in paragraph 17.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. In view of the Department's proposals for restructuring in the
Engineering Directorate and the fact that decisions on the
proposals are expected within three months, the Court is of the
view that the Union should accept the Department's offer of one
position of Principal Technician in the Directorate to be filled
by internal competition. Once the Directorate Planning and Design
team is agreed, the parties should negotiate the structure of the
Command Planning and Design Teams and the criteria for
establishing Principal Technician positions.
The Court is of the view that service should be a deciding factor
in selection for Principal Technician positions only when other
appropriate requirements are clearly equal.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court,
Evelyn Owens
___17th___January,__1989. ___________________
P. F. / M. F. Deputy Chairman