Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD90683 Case Number: LCR13193 Section / Act: S67 Parties: FUJITSU MICROELECTRONICS (IRELAND) LIMITED - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Dispute regarding the annual assessment of one employee.
Recommendation:
5. Having considered the arguments made by the parties and
having examined all the evidence submitted the Court finds no
grounds on which it could recommend concession of the claim.
The Court notes, however, the statement made at the hearing and
included in the Company's submission that it is likely that the
claimant will be upgraded at the next annual review in April.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Brennan Mr Devine
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD90683 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13193
THE LABOUR COURT
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: FUJITSU MICROELECTRONICS (IRELAND) LIMITED
(Represented by the Federation of Irish Employers)
AND
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute regarding the annual assessment of one employee.
BACKGROUND:
2. 1. The Company is a wholly owned subsidiary of the Fujitsu
Group of Japan and and employs 240 workers including 12
clerical employees at its plant in Tallaght. The worker
concerned joined the Company as a general process worker
(grade c) on 25 June, 1984 and in July 1986, was promoted
within the operations area to grade b with responsibility for
quality checks on product and summarising results. In 1988
she was transferred to the clerical/administrative area at
grade 2 level as a production assistant.
2. The worker claims that, at the time of her transfer to
clerical duties, she was also offered a promotion within the
operations area to group leader. She decided to accept the
clerical vacancy at a salary of #8,484 because, being a day
job, it allowed her to study by night. The worker claims
that 2 weeks later a second offer of employment was made at a
salary of #8,192. She states that she accepted the revised
offer after the Company assured her that her loss would
shortly be made good. The worker took this to mean that
after the April review, she would be moved from the clerical
grade 2 scale to grade 3. The Company claim no knowledge of
the alleged original offer of employment and further
maintains that no assurances were given to the worker who had
transferred freely to the administrative area.
3. When no movement to grade 3 was granted to the worker in
the reviews of 1988, 1989 and 1990 she availed of the
grievance procedure which forms part of the Union/Management
Agreement. The matter was not resolved at local level and
was referred to the Conciliation Service of the Labour Court
on the 4th October, 1990. A conciliation conference was held
on 12th November, 1990 at which no agreement was reached.
Both parties requested a Labour Court investigation which was
held on 23rd January, 1991.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. In 1987 the worker was earning #8,500 (plus a shift
allowance) as a setter when she was offered in a conversation
with the Senior Personnel Officer a post in Administration
attracting a salary of #8,484 or the position of group leader
on a salary of #8,970 (plus a shift allowance). The worker
had for some time been seeking a position in Administration
and decided to take the opportunity despite having to take a
drop in salary. This post was taken up because the position
of production assistant was a day job and would allow her to
undertake evening study, an opportunity she has used to good
effect gaining 3 separate qualifications over the last 3
years. Two weeks after accepting the offer in writing from
the Senior Personnel Officer, a revised offer was made of
#8,192. When challenged, management apologised explaining
that her original offer would give her an advantage over
other clerical staff with similar service and experience.
The apologies for the mistake were tempered with assurances
that the shortfall would very quickly be made good, this,
presumably, because of the large loss in income the worker
suffered. In previous negotiations, management claimed not
to have been aware of the first offer of #8,484, but the
worker clearly remembers that the second revised letter of
appointment was identical to the first but with the salary
originally offered tippexed out and the new offer of #8,192
superimposed.
2. Despite the assurances by management that the salary
shortfall would be quickly made up, the worker was to be
disappointed over the next 3 annual reviews when she only
received at each review one annual increment on the grade 2
scale rather than her reasonable expectation that she would
be moved onto grade 3. Her expectations were heightened in
February, 1989 when a vacancy became available within the
purchasing department for which the worker formally applied.
She withdrew her application however when her manager stated
that it was not in her interest to apply for the job and that
if she knew what was in store for her in her current position
she would regret moving. Naturally this was interpreted by
the worker to mean that at the next salary review the
shortfall in her salary would be made up by movement onto the
grade 3 scale. Unfortunately this was not the case and the
position in purchasing was filled by the lateral transfer of
a male employee which possibly infringed the worker's rights
under the 1977 Employment Equality Act.
3. In the normal course the worker would have been entitled
to move from grade 2 to grade 3 after 2 years. This was the
expectation when the April 90 annual assessment took place.
The disappointment at all the developments over the years was
compounded by gaining only a movement of one increment on the
grade 2 scale. After years of patience the worker availed of
the grievance procedure. At stage 1 management tried to
denigrate aspects of her performance but this was withdrawn
unequivocally by more senior management at Stage II. In the
end, however, all that management offered was an opportunity
to revert to her old floor job.
4. While it is impossible to prove, there is a perception
among members that membership of the Union as much as any
other factor would have influenced the Company's attitude to
the worker and her rightful expectations. Her reversion to a
floor job would have effectively halved Union membership in
the administration area. The Union believe that the
Management claim that their original offer gave the worker an
advantage over her colleagues is incorrect and irrelevant.
The claim that the worker was exceptional in securing grade 2
as a starting grade is also erroneous. It is now known that
other staff have started on grade 2. Management have also
said that the worker could not have expected to move from
grade 2 to grade 3 in less than 2/3 years. In this
connection it should be pointed out that as of April, 1990
she had made her 4th incremental movement on scale 2.
5. As the original salary offered was #8,484 it should have
been honoured by management as both parties had made a
contract. It is also unprecedented for a worker to be
offered promotion with no increase in salary. If the group
leader post was accepted there would be a minimum increase of
#390 per annum. The Union are seeking either a salary of
#8,922 with effect from February, 1988 (minimum increase on
previous salary) or that the original contract of #8,484 be
honoured for 1988 and that her manager's commitment in 1989
be interpreted as an upgrading to grade 3, point 6 on 1
April, 1989.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The worker's keen interest in transferring to the
clerical area was well known within the Company and she had
applied for 4 vacancies in the Administrative area before
being transferred to the largely clerical role of production
assistant in March, 1988. This transfer was in accordance
with terms agreed between her, the Assembly Manager and
Personnel. These terms (details supplied to the Court) were
confirmed as agreed in writing by the worker herself. As
regards salary she was assimilated on grade 2 of the clerical
grading/salary structure at the appropriate point compared to
her FME service.
2. Each April Management conducts a review of the salaries
of all technical, supervisory and clerical employees. All
Management are involved in decisions on promotions to ensure
equity across the various workgroups. Considered as criteria
would be: service, job application, job knowledge, new
additional skills, education and attendance. In the post-
review interview of April 1990 the worker expressed
dissatisfaction at not getting promoted to clerical grade 3,
feeling that promotion was warranted after 2 years in
grade 2. A grievance was lodged in accordance with agreed
procedures and various meeting were held up to stage III
involving the full time Union official. The facts of each
argument were established and no justification was found to
promote the worker. The procedures governing compensation
and promotion for clerical employees (details supplied to the
Court) have been formally accepted by the Union as part of a
Recognition and Procedures Agreement.
3. It is incorrect to say that the worker passed up a
certain promotion as group leader on shift work to transfer
to the clerical area. The transfer was freely chosen by the
worker following a declared strong interest in a clerical
role. She was not dissuaded from applying for a higher
category vacancy in purchasing by the Assembly Manager and
subsequent events prove this (details supplied). No promises
or inducements were made at any stage regarding her rate of
development, promotion, indeed she transferred to clerical
grade at a higher grade than is usual or would be conceded
under present arrangements. Since joining the clerical area,
the worker's pay increases have exceeded the norm for the
industry. Finally it is normally over two years grade
service before a clerk is promoted from grade 2 to grade 3.
The average in April, 1990 was 2.5 years and she is not out
of line in this regard. The worker is however likely to
succeed next April and be promoted provided duties are
performed satisfactorily and attendance is regular.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. Having considered the arguments made by the parties and
having examined all the evidence submitted the Court finds no
grounds on which it could recommend concession of the claim.
The Court notes, however, the statement made at the hearing and
included in the Company's submission that it is likely that the
claimant will be upgraded at the next annual review in April.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
19th February, 1991 Evelyn Owens
J.F./M.O'C. _______________
Deputy Chairman