Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD91454 Case Number: AD91106 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: G.E.C. AVERY LIMITED - and - MANUFACTURING SCIENCE FINANCE |
Demotion of a worker.
Recommendation:
5. The Court has fully considered the findings of the Rights
Commissioner together with the oral and written submissions of the
parties.
The Court has taken account of the long service of the employee
and the length of service in posts of responsibility in the
Company.
The Court has taken full cognisance of the view expressed by the
Company with regard to the present-day needs of the Company to be
efficient and competitive.
The Company in dealing with the matter used all the normal
disciplinary procedures before taking action (and allowed
reasonable time to the employee to carry out the duties required
to an acceptable standard).
In all the circumstances it is the view of the Court that the
employee be retained on the rate of pay which would apply to the
grade of Chief Clerk New Goods Department at the date of issue of
this decision and that he be retained on that rate of pay until
the rate of pay for the grade has caught up with the salary
currently enjoyed.
It is the decision of the Court that the recommendation of the
Rights Commissioner be amended in accordance with the above.
The Court so decides.
Division: MrMcGrath Mr Brennan Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD91454 APPEAL DECISION NO. AD10691
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES: G.E.C. AVERY LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATION OF IRISH EMPLOYERS)
and
MANUFACTURING SCIENCE FINANCE
SUBJECT:
1. Demotion of a worker.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker concerned in this dispute was employed by the
Company in April, 1952 as an assistant chief service clerk. In
1958 he was promoted to chief service clerk and in 1968 he was
appointed to chief new goods clerk, a position he held for 23
years. In 1987 the Company informed the worker that he was one of
three workers selected for redundany. He was offered a redundancy
package which was subsequently withdrawn. The worker received a
number of warnings during the period 5th April, 1990 to 12th June,
1990. The Company claims that the worker's job performance during
this time was unsatisfactory and informed him in January, 1991
that he was to be demoted. He was offered the position of new
goods clerk. The Union refuted the Company's claim and referred
the matter to a Rights Commissioner for investigation and
recommendation. On 7th July, 1991 the Rights Commissioner
recommended as follows:
"Having given the most careful consideration to the points
made by both parties I have come to the conclusion that I
should uphold the Company's decision to demote the worker.
However, in noting that no real evidence was given of a poor
or unacceptable performance over the longer part of his
service with the Company which amounted to 39 years I feel it
would not be equitable to make any attack on the salary which
the worker is currently enjoying. I also note that in recent
years the worker has been suffering from a very distressing
illness, Tinnitus.
My recommendation in summary is that the demotion should be
effected but that the worker should retain his salary and
secure all appropriate adjustments to that salary during the
remainder of his service with the Company".
The Company rejected the Rights Commissioner's recommendation and
appealed it on 20th August, 1991, under Section 13(9) of the
Industrial Relations Act, 1969. The Court heard the appeal on
25th October, 1991.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Company should have dismissed the worker.
2. The Company demoted the worker as an alternative to
terminating his employment.
3. The worker was made aware of his shortcomings in his work
performance and the consequences of his failure to improve.
4. The worker should not retain the rate of pay he enjoyed
before his demotion. He is now doing less work and has less
responsibility.
5. The Company fail to understand the Rights Commissioner's
assumption that there was no real evidence that the worker's
work performance was poor over the longer part of his
employment. The Company were in a position to produce
documentary evidence of his poor work performance during the
past 10 years.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The worker has 39 years loyal and efficient service with
the Company. Previous management complimented him on his
work.
2. The worker has been subjected to unnecessary pressure from
management during the past 4 years. His work may have
deteriorated because of this pressure; there is certainly
evidence of a deterioration in his health.
3. The management's efforts to bring him within the
disciplinary procedures is the result of an exaggeration of a
number of small matters.
DECISION:
5. The Court has fully considered the findings of the Rights
Commissioner together with the oral and written submissions of the
parties.
The Court has taken account of the long service of the employee
and the length of service in posts of responsibility in the
Company.
The Court has taken full cognisance of the view expressed by the
Company with regard to the present-day needs of the Company to be
efficient and competitive.
The Company in dealing with the matter used all the normal
disciplinary procedures before taking action (and allowed
reasonable time to the employee to carry out the duties required
to an acceptable standard).
In all the circumstances it is the view of the Court that the
employee be retained on the rate of pay which would apply to the
grade of Chief Clerk New Goods Department at the date of issue of
this decision and that he be retained on that rate of pay until
the rate of pay for the grade has caught up with the salary
currently enjoyed.
It is the decision of the Court that the recommendation of the
Rights Commissioner be amended in accordance with the above.
The Court so decides.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Tom McGrath
_________________
10th December, 1991 Deputy Chairman.
F.B./J.C.