Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD91343 Case Number: LCR13401 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: DUBLIN PORT AND DOCKS BOARD - and - NATIONAL ENGINEERING AND ELECTRICAL TRADE UNION;AMALGAMATED ENGINEERING UNION |
Dispute concerning the appointment of a stand-in foreman.
Recommendation:
5. Having considered the submissions from the parties and noting
the manner in which chargehands have been traditionally appointed
the Court is of the view that the Unions' claim is reasonable and
accordingly should be conceded.
The Court so recommends.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Collins Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD91343 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13401
THE LABOUR COURT
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT 1990
PARTIES: DUBLIN PORT AND DOCKS BOARD
AND
NATIONAL ENGINEERING AND ELECTRICAL TRADE UNION
AMALGAMATED ENGINEERING UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning the appointment of a stand-in foreman.
BACKGROUND:
2. The dispute concerns the decision of the Board to nominate a
stand-in replacement for the technical supervisor in the Fitting
Shop of the Engineer's Department. The technical Supervisor is a
turner by trade and the stand-in worker nominated by the Board is
a blacksmith by trade, and a member of another union. The Unions
are objecting to the nomination on the grounds that the Company's
action is in breach of a long standing tradition whereby a fitter
or turner was always appointed to the post. The Unions state that
if the Board imposes the appointment there will be an official
dispute. Following local discussions, an interim arrangement was
agreed which provides that nobody would stand in during the
absence of the supervisor and the position would be looked after
by an existing supervisor from a different shop. The issue was
referred to the Conciliation Service of the Labour Relations
Commission on the 12th February, 1991. A conciliation conference
was held on the 15th May, 1991 but no agreement was reached. The
dispute was referred to the Labour Court by the Labour Relations
Commission on the 3rd July, 1991. A Court hearing was held on the
27th August, 1991.
UNIONS' ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. Since the early nineteen fifties when the vacancy for
stand-in foreman arose, the post has always been filled by a
fitter or a turner. On no occasion has a blacksmith ever
filled the position. Where a fitter or a turner becomes
foreman over the machine shop, this worker is also in charge
of the blacksmith shop. To reverse this long established
tradition and precedent is not acceptable to the Unions as it
closes down avenues of promotion for members.
2. Relying on service with the Board as the criterion for
not appointing a fitter is completely unacceptable. A worker
who was a chargehand blacksmith and who had more service than
two foremen in the machine shop was not appointed to the
position of foreman in the machine shop.
BOARD'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Board has always maintained that seniority is only
one factor to be considered in the case of promotion, and
only in a situation where all other factors are equal would
seniority apply. In this case the Board is satisfied that
the worker concerned is the most suitable person for the
position and is also the most senior of the candidates for
the post. The Mechanical Engineer makes the decision to
nominate the "stand-in" supervisor and in his judgement the
worker concerned is the most suitable applicant for the post,
taking all factors into account, e.g., experience,
suitability to manage, seniority, supervisory ability, etc.
2. There is no agreement reserving the position of
supervisor to any particular trade in that area. The fact
that a blacksmith did not previously hold the position of
supervisor or stand-in supervisor in this shop is totally
irrelevant. The Board used the same criteria in deciding on
the most suitable applicant, irrespective of whether the
individual was a blacksmith, fitter or turner. The fact that
a blacksmith was successful on this occasion does not mean
that the Board has departed from established selection
procedures.
3. The Unions refuse to accept the concept of a blacksmith
supervising fitters and turners. There is nothing new about
this concept. It is a long established practice in the
Board's service as well as in other organisations such as
Dublin County Council and Irish Rail, that employees of one
craft may supervise employees of another craft.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. Having considered the submissions from the parties and noting
the manner in which chargehands have been traditionally appointed
the Court is of the view that the Unions' claim is reasonable and
accordingly should be conceded.
The Court so recommends.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
13th September, 1991 Evelyn Owens
T.O'D / M.O'C. _______________
Deputy Chairman