Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD89680 Case Number: LCR12687 Section / Act: S67 Parties: GALLAHER (DUBLIN) LIMITED - and - IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION |
Dispute concerning the appointment of a supervisor.
Recommendation:
5. Having considered the arguments put forward by the parties,
the Court considers that the Company policy of developing future
management staff from within its existing workforce is reasonable.
The proposed rotation of personnel between the jobs is limited to
a two year period and in the Court's view does not lessen the
promotional prospects of other staff. If the rotation does not
take place, a promotional vacancy simply does not arise. If the
rotation does take place, the Company has guaranteed that at the
end of the period, the employee objected to will either revert to
his own job or be promoted. If he is promoted, then the vacancy
arising will be boarded for competition among other staff.
In the circumstances, the Court recommends that the Union accede
to the Company's proposal.
Division: CHAIRMAN Mr Keogh Mr Devine
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD89680 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12687
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: GALLAHER (DUBLIN) LIMITED
AND
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning the appointment of a supervisor.
BACKGROUND:
2. As part of a major re-organisation programme at its plant in
Tallaght the Company decided to transfer three employees to
different jobs within the factory (details supplied to the Court).
The Company advised the Union of its decision to transfer a worker
from his position as materials co-ordinator to the post of
supervisor in the packing department on secondment for a period of
approximately two years. At the end of the secondment period the
worker would either revert to his old job or be promoted,
permanent vacancies then created would be boarded in the normal
way. The Union claims that the Company is in breach of an
existing agreement whereby all supervisory posts are advertised
internally and competed for by eligible workers. It also
maintains that the worker concerned is not a supervisor but comes
from a clerical area. Management claims that the movement of
personnel is necessary in order to fully develop the potential of
future managerial staff and that the worker concerned is part of
the supervisory staff. Local discussions failed to resolve the
issue and the dispute was referred to the conciliation service of
the Labour Court on the 4th September, 1989. A conciliation
conference was held on the 15th September, 1989 but no agreement
was reached. The dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the
27th September, 1989. A Court hearing was held on the 14th
December, 1989.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Company is misrepresenting the situation by claiming
that the proposed changes are necessary to broaden and develop
the potential of personnel when in fact the changes made are
in order to train potential managers in areas of promotion
normally filled from workers in open competition. The
assertion that supervisors are being rotated is untrue. The
worker concerned is not a supervisor at present. The fact
that he is on the supervisors' scale of pay is entirely due to
the recently introduced Hay MSL pay structure. A similar
comparison in pay exists between section persons and
chargehands but the two are different grades of workers.
3. 2. The Union in the past had not objected to the switching of
supervisors but as the worker concerned is from a clerical
grade his appointment to packing area supervisor would in fact
be a promotion and as outlined earlier the agreement is that
promotional vacancies in this grade should first be advertised
internally to allow open competition between interested
employees to take place. A somewhat similar situation arose
in December, 1976 which was the subject of a Labour Court
hearing and recommendation. The Court recommended then that
in the special circumstances of the case that the workers
should (without prejudice to the agreement on advertising
vacancies for supervisors) accept the Company's proposal of
that time. This recommendation was rejected by the workers
and a compromise solution was agreed.
3. The Union believes that the Company as in 1976, are again
trying to bypass the agreement on the advertising of
internal positions in the changehand and supervisory grades
and are attempting to use the supervisory grade in question
for the training of and testing out of potential managers.
This would have the effect of denying other eligible workers
the opportunity of promotion in open competition as has been
the procedure up to now. The Company is big enough and
profitable enough to provide training for potential management
staff without interfering in the present system of promotion
up to the level of supervisor.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. An important part of the Company's departmental
reorganisation was the proposal to transfer the existing
supervisor to the supply department, and to transfer another
supervisor (the worker concerned) into the packing department
in his place. The actual clause dealing with the change, as
outlined in the proposals, was given to each member of the
packing department (details supplied to the Court). The
Company viewed the appointment of the worker concerned, though
not previously employed in a line supervisory position, as an
opportunity to develop an employee who had demonstrated
ability and potential.
2. In the Company's view no vacancy exists. The transfers
provided development opportunities for two workers. No
promotional opportunities would be cut off by the transfer;
exactly the same number of positions would be available for
competition if turnover occurred, as would happen in the near
future due to retirements. If the workers did not transfer,
no vacancy would exist. If the transfer is implemented how
does a vacancy suddenly occur? Neither the Union representing
the two workers, or any other group within the Company are
disputing the transfer, or the reasons for it.
4. 3. Within the "line" supervisory structure, the Company has
already stated that due to job amalgamations there will soon
be two surplus supervisors. In time they could either be
transferred or offered redundancy. If there was a "true
vacancy" then one of the surplus line supervisors would be
slotted in. The transfer of the worker concerned was a
prudent and developmental move which would allow the Company
to prepare for future internal management/supervisory changes
in a sensible way. No group loses by the appointment. It
could be argued that all are potentially better off as
development of personnel internally allows more future
vacancies to be filled from within. This is essential in a
declining industry.
4. The Company does not accept that it breached any
agreements or previous Labour Court Recommendations by the
proposed transfer. The proposed changes in the current case
involve transfers of similarly graded employees, not the
filling of any vacancy. The worker concerned has a high level
of the appropriate technical skills and knowledge, and has
demonstrated potential for future development. This is the
basis for the secondment nature of the proposed appointment.
The appointment of the worker concerned to the post of packing
department supervisor was perfectly within the authority of
the Company, and was not in breach of any agreement.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. Having considered the arguments put forward by the parties,
the Court considers that the Company policy of developing future
management staff from within its existing workforce is reasonable.
The proposed rotation of personnel between the jobs is limited to
a two year period and in the Court's view does not lessen the
promotional prospects of other staff. If the rotation does not
take place, a promotional vacancy simply does not arise. If the
rotation does take place, the Company has guaranteed that at the
end of the period, the employee objected to will either revert to
his own job or be promoted. If he is promoted, then the vacancy
arising will be boarded for competition among other staff.
In the circumstances, the Court recommends that the Union accede
to the Company's proposal.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court,
Kevin Heffernan
__29th__December,__1989. ___________________
T. O'D. / M. F. Chairman