LCR13357

Subject:
Dispute concerning the criteria used by the Board for filling supervisory positions in the building section arising from the filling of a vacancy for technical supervisor.

Recommendation:
5. Given the circumstances described by the parties in the oral
and written submissions it is the view of the Court that through
custom and practice the technical supervisor post was filled
from the carpenter grade.

The Court takes the view that this approach precluded all other
grades from aspiring to the supervisory grades. The Court notes
in this context that the Union representative indicated that
supervisory positions were not the preserve of carpenters.

The Court considers there should be a basis for the recruitment of
supervisory staff which will take account of the diversity of
trades. Accordingly the Court recommends that the Company
together with the Unions discuss a supervisory structure which
will meet the supervisory requirements of management and will
provide an equitable promotion structure for all trades.

Pending the outcome of discussions the Court recommends that the
claimant continues to be paid in accordance with the rate of pay
applicable to the technical supervisor.

Division: MrMcGrath Mr McHenry Mr Devine

Text of Document__________________________________________________________________

CD91210 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13357

THE LABOUR COURT

INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 67, INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT 1946


PARTIES: DUBLIN PORT AND DOCKS BOARD

AND

BUILDING AND ALLIED TRADES' UNION
UNION OF CONSTRUCTION ALLIED TRADES AND TECHNICIANS


SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning the criteria used by the Board for filling
supervisory positions in the building section arising from the
filling of a vacancy for technical supervisor.


BACKGROUND:
2. The building section performs the civil engineering functions
of the Board. The supervisory structure in the building section
is as follows:-

1. Senior Technical Supervisors (S.T.S.)
2. Technical Supervisor (T.S.)
1. Junior Technical Supervisor (J.T.S.)

Prior to the retirement of the S.T.S. in July, 1990, the S.T.S.
and T.S. positions were occupied by the carpenter grade while the
J.T.S. position was occupied by the painter grade. Following the
retirement of the S.T.S. a number of promotions took place
including the promotion of the J.T.S. to T.S. and the promotion of
a chargehand/carpenter to J.T.S. The Unions claim that through
custom and practice the promotion path to the position of T.S. is
restricted to the carpenter grade and that the normal progression
is that the chargehand/carpenter would be promoted to the T.S.
position. The Board claims that supervisory positions in the
building section are open to all craftsmen in the section and that
the T.S. position was filled on the basis of selecting the best
person for the job. No agreement was reached at local level
discussions and the matter was referred on 12th October, 1990 to
the Conciliation Service of the Labour Court. A conciliation
conference was held on the 18th December, 1990 at which no
agreement was reached and the matter was referred on the 18th
April, 1991 to the Labour Court for investigation and
recommendation. The Court investigated the dispute on 28th May,
1991 (the earliest date suitable to the parties).

UNIONS' ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. For many years it has been custom and practice that
supervisory grade positions in the building section have been
held by carpenters. It is unacceptable that the Board is
seeking to change the established practice for promotions by
imposing someone from outside the carpenter grade and thus
creating the present dispute.

2. To solve a claim for re-grading by the J.T.S., who
supervised painters and is a painter by trade, the Board
proposes to introduce him into the carpenters promotion
structure. If the Board wishes to improve the painters
supervisory grade from the J.T.S. grade it should do so
without impinging on the carpenters area.

3. The normal sequence of progression in the carpenter's
promotion structure is from chargehand/carpenter to T.S. and
upwards. When a temporary vacancy arises and there is a need
for supervisors to deputise the same sequence is maintained
with grades stepping up to fill the sequence of vacancies.
The J.T.S. for painters was never involved in deputising for
other supervisory grades and did not step into the
carpenter's supervisory structure at any time. The J.T.S.
should still be excluded from the carpenters' area and the
chargehand/carpenter should be given the position of T.S.

4. If the proposed changes in the promotional practice is
implemented it will mean the loss of a promotional grade
to the carpenters and therefore a loss of earnings on
appropriate grade and relief duties during absences of higher
grades, i.e. during illness and holidays. In the interest of
the working environment in the port the Board should uphold
the established supervisory structure in the carpenters'
area.


BOARD'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The supervisory positions in the building section are
not the sole preserve of the carpentry trade. There is no
agreement reserving any supervisory position to members of
that trade. Supervisory positions in the building section
are open to all craftsmen in that section and are filled on
the basis of the best person for the job.

2. When the vacancy for a T.S. arose in July, 1990 the
Board selected the most suitable person for the job. The
Board considered that the chargehand/carpenter in question
did not have the requisite experience to be promoted to T.S.
He was promoted to J.T.S. and is being paid at the T.S. rate
pending the resolution of this dispute.

3. The Board does not accept that the promotion of a person
from one craft to supervise workers from other crafts
represents a change of practice. The supervisory positions
in the building section involve the supervision of employees
from different crafts. This has been the case for years and
the carpenters have long accepted the fact that one trade can
supervise another.

4. The promotion prospects for carpenters have not been
adversely affected by the manner in which the T.S. position
in question was filled. The carpenters can still aspire to
the same number of supervisory positions as before. The Board
regards the promotions made as being most beneficial to all
and should be accepted by the Unions.

RECOMMENDATION:
5. Given the circumstances described by the parties in the oral
and written submissions it is the view of the Court that through
custom and practice the technical supervisor post was filled
from the carpenter grade.

The Court takes the view that this approach precluded all other
grades from aspiring to the supervisory grades. The Court notes
in this context that the Union representative indicated that
supervisory positions were not the preserve of carpenters.

The Court considers there should be a basis for the recruitment of
supervisory staff which will take account of the diversity of
trades. Accordingly the Court recommends that the Company
together with the Unions discuss a supervisory structure which
will meet the supervisory requirements of management and will
provide an equitable promotion structure for all trades.

Pending the outcome of discussions the Court recommends that the
claimant continues to be paid in accordance with the rate of pay
applicable to the technical supervisor.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court

22nd July, 1991 Tom McGrath
A.S. / M.O'C. _______________
Deputy Chairman