Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD89663 Case Number: AD8982 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: ACCO (IRELAND) LIMITED - and - IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION |
Appeal by the Company against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation No. S.T. 308/89 concerning the filling of a post as a printing operator.
Recommendation:
8. Having regard to the particular work experience of the
candidates the Court is of the view that the appointment made by
the Company was appropriate and therefore upholds the Company's
appeal.
The Court so decides.
Division: CHAIRMAN Mr McHenry Mr Devine
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD89663 APPEAL DECISION NO. AD8289
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 13(9)
PARTIES: ACCO (IRELAND) LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATION OF IRISH EMPLOYERS)
and
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Appeal by the Company against Rights Commissioner's
Recommendation No. S.T. 308/89 concerning the filling of a post as
a printing operator.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company, which is situated in the Clonshaugh Industrial
Estate, Dublin, is part of a major Multi-National and
manufactures, in the main office requisites. It employs
approximately 160 people.
3. The Company advertised a post as printing operator internally.
There were several applications for the post and the Company
selected a worker who was employed in the Bindery Department.
Although the post was not promotional its attraction lay in the
fact that it was day work rather than shift. Most of the workers
are employed on a 3 shift operation.
4. Another worker, who had longer service and considered he had
been passed over for the post, objected to the appointment. A
meeting was held between the Union and the Company to discuss the
issue. As no agreement was possible the matter was referred to a
Rights Commissioner for investigation and recommendation.
Following an investigation the Rights Commissioner issued the
following recommendation dated 7th September, 1989:-
"This is always a difficult area in industrial relations as it
concerns the application of a fundamental management right.
The Union suggested that there was a good deal of bad feeling
concerning this appointment. The claimant had eight years on
shift work and for family reasons wished to move to day work.
In making the appointment I am sure the Company would not
wish to create any unnecessary friction. It is not as such a
promotional outlet. No supervisory element is present.
In these particular circumstances, I recommend that the
claimant is given an opportunity to compete for the position
on a permanent basis by being afforded a trial period at the
post of equal duration with the holder. The Union should
then accept whatever decision the Company may make thereafter
in the matter."
5. The Company appealed against this recommendation under Section
13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. The Court heard the
appeal on the 1st November, 1989.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
6. 1. The Company purchased a new RYOBI Printing machine hence
the need for an operator. Management picked the most suitably
qualified person for the post. The person selected commenced
employment with the Company in 1985 in the Bindery Department.
He has worked there ever since. Initially he was employed as
a materials handler. He subsequently worked as guillotine
operator and then went back to the position of materials
handler. From early, 1988 up to his appointment as printing
operator he has worked as "back up" on a number of machines
and has received training from the Company's Print specialist.
The worker who is objecting to the appointment has been
employed as an assistant extruder operator on a 3 shift
operation since 1981. He stands in as required for the lead
hand. Prior to taking up employment with the Company he had
worked for 9 years on "extrusion" which was the sole reason
for employing him.
2. While some training would be needed on the operation of
the new machine the basic principles of printing remain the
same. The worker picked for this position is familiar with
these principles as well as the standards and products of the
Department.
3. It is the Company's opinion and decision that the present
holder of the post is suitable over and above the person
objecting to the appointment. The Company must have the sole
discretion in the matters of recruitment/promotions.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
7. 1. When the Union sought the meeting with the Company it was
to ascertain in as far as possible why the worker here
concerned did not get the job and to have the Company make
known his short-comings. During the course of the meeting it
became clear that there were no differences in the
capabilities of the worker here concerned and the person who
got the job.
Therefore in these circumstances the Union would have expected
that the worker here concerned would have got the job on
seniority and the fact that he is on a 3 shift operation.
2. The Company has stated in the past that where possible,
all things being equal, favourable consideration would be
given to shift workers applying for positions on day work. In
this case the Company did not do so and in addition ignored
the worker's seniority. It appears from the Union's
observations that the Company ignored the above because of the
worker's skills as an assistant extrusion operator.
3. Irrespective of who gets the position training will be
required. In accepting the Rights Commissioner's
recommendation the worker believes that given the chance he
can prove that he is adequately equipped with the knowledge
necessary to fulfil the Company's requirements for the
position.
DECISION:
8. Having regard to the particular work experience of the
candidates the Court is of the view that the appointment made by
the Company was appropriate and therefore upholds the Company's
appeal.
The Court so decides.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Heffernan
__________________________
23rd November, 1989 Chairman.
M.D./J.C.