Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD9014 Case Number: LCR12747 Section / Act: S67 Parties: THORN EMI - and - SALES MARKETING AND ADMINISTRATIVE UNION OF IRELAND |
Claim by the Union on behalf of a worker for reinstatement to Unit Manager status.
Recommendation:
6. Having considered the submissions made by the parties the
Court is satisfied that the removal of the employee from his post
as Unit Manager was unwarranted and recommends that he be paid the
sum of #500 and offered the next available position of Unit
Manager when such a vacancy occurs.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr Brennan Mr Devine
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD9014 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12747
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: THORN EMI
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATION OF IRISH EMPLOYERS)
and
SALES MARKETING AND ADMINISTRATIVE UNION OF IRELAND
SUBJECT:
1. Claim by the Union on behalf of a worker for reinstatement to
Unit Manager status.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company has a workforce of over two hundred, who work
primarily from high street and shopping centre units. Each of
these units is under the control of a Unit Manager who reports to
an Area Manager. The worker concerned commenced employment with
the Company in September, 1987. In December, 1987 the Northside
Shopping Centre was opened and he was appointed as a trainee
manager, he was confirmed in the position of Unit Manager in July,
1988. The worker's performance was reviewed by the newly
appointed area manager at a meeting held in October, 1988 and on
the basis of unsatisfactory performance he was transferred to
North Earl Street in the capacity as Sales Manager. The worker
was paid #4,900 compensation for returning his Company car and his
salary was frozen at its current level.
3. In August, 1989 a local level meeting was held between the
Company and the Union to discuss the matter. The Company's
position was that in the intervening period, at no stage had the
worker stated that he had a grievance with the Company. The
Company's understanding is that at the meeting held between the
Area Manager and this worker, both agreed that neither the Unit's
business performance nor the worker's own management performance
was satisfactory. The Union claims that the worker was
satisfactory in all respects and that he had never been informed
of complaints, etc. and that at the time of the demotion the
worker felt that he had no options available but to accept the
position. Further, that at the time, the Unit Managers had
recently joined this Union, which was trying to negotiate with the
Company for recognition. On 23rd October, 1989 the matter was
referred to the conciliation service of the Labour Court and a
conciliation conference was held on 19th December, 1989. The
Union is seeking the reinstatement of the worker as a Unit Manager
with the retainer of his car, the payment of two increments which
he had lost and inclusion in the Managers' bonus scheme. The
Company's position is that it is willing to consider the worker
for any future positions, but cannot guarantee any such managerial
appointment as of right. On 4th January, 1990 the matter was
referred to the Labour Court for investigation and recommendation.
The Court investigated the dispute on 1st February, 1990.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. An internal audit was completed on 30th September, 1988
and resulted in a satisfactory report, this was discussed and
accepted on 6th October, 1988 by the then Personnel Executive.
However, at a meeting held a few weeks later, the new Regional
Manager astonished this worker by stating that his Unit was
wholly unsatisfactory and referring to other problems
regarding staff under his control and arrears of collections.
This worker was a good Unit Manager and there had been no
previous complaints against him. The worker was given no
reasonable opportunity to defend himself and the Company did
not observe the usual disciplinary stages. At the time, the
unit managers had recently joined this Union and the Company
used the interim weakness of the unit managers
Association/Union to their own advantage.
2. The worker was approached by the Regional Manager in
March, 1989, who invited him to apply for a vacancy in
Donaghmede as a Unit Manager, however, the worker would be on
probation and the Regional Manager would occupy an office
there. The worker did not apply as he felt that he would be
undermined, as the Regional Manager had previously occupied
this position and would still be located there. However, in
this situation the Regional Manager was suggesting that he run
a branch twice the size of the one from which he was removed
by her and this questions her ability to evaluate him. Since
then a vacancy arose in Bray and the worker did apply but a
previously acting Regional Manager was appointed. The worker
retains his commitment to the Company and his performance as
Sales Manager supports this assertion. The worker should be
given the first vacancy that arises in the Dublin region and
in the meanwhile be compensated for the losses accrued.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
5. 1. In accepting the change in conditions, the Area Manager
agreed a compensation figure for the loss of a Company car and
the worker's salary was set at #15,060, on the condition that
it would not be reviewed in June, 1989. As a comparison, a
worker appointed to the position of Unit Manager in 1990 could
expect a salary of #15,794 per annum compared to #12,000 for a
Sales Manager. In addition, the worker continues to receive
generous compensation such as telephone and clothing
allowances. All of this is far above the level that a worker
occupying this level of responsibility could expect.
2. The worker did not use the grievance procedures in place,
but waited ten months before having the grievance taken up by
his Union. The grievance itself has passed from one whereby
he should be given a manager's salary, to one where he should
be given full compensation including a Company vehicle. Now
the issue has expanded to include status. The Labour Court in
AD50/86 clearly stated that job status is not the same as
responsibility/authority levels and relates to the subjective
view that the job holder has of how his/her work performance
is regarded by others. The move into his present job has
allowed the worker to obtain experience and considerably
improve his performance. Since moving into the position of
Sales Manager the worker's performance has been satisfactory.
The Company would consider him for any managerial position,
but not by right.
RECOMMENDATION:
6. Having considered the submissions made by the parties the
Court is satisfied that the removal of the employee from his post
as Unit Manager was unwarranted and recommends that he be paid the
sum of #500 and offered the next available position of Unit
Manager when such a vacancy occurs.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
__________________________
12th February, 1990. Deputy Chairman
U.M./J.C.