Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD92592 Case Number: LCR13905 Section / Act: S20(1) Parties: NACANCO LIMITED - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Dispute concerning the filling of a Quality Control Inspector position.
Recommendation:
5. The Court, having considered the submissions made by the
parties, does not consider that there has been any element of
discrimination involved in the particular worker's failure to
obtain the posts applied for. Furthermore having regard to the
terms of the Company/Union agreement on promotional procedures the
Court does not consider it feasible to recommend that the
individual worker be promoted to the next vacancy, as proposed by
the Union. The Court, therefore, does not recommend concession of
the Union's claim.
It does, however, consider that the Company for the sake of the
maintenance of good industrial relations at the plant, should
consider how best to assist long serving employees, who have
clearly shown willingness, in fulfilling promotional ambitions.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr Brennan Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD92592 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13905
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES: NACANCO LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATION OF IRISH EMPLOYERS)
and
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning the filling of a Quality Control Inspector
position.
BACKGROUND:
2. 1. A vacancy for the position of a Quality Control (Q.C.)
Inspector arose in January, 1992. The position was advertised
and 24 applications were received, of which 23 were
interviewed. A short list of candidates was drawn up and a
worker was selected to fill the vacancy.
2. The Union made representations on behalf of a worker who
was not selected for the position. The worker met the Q.C.
Manager who informed him that there were applicants whose
"attributes more closely matched the requirements of the job
than the worker". The worker was not satisfied and a
Company/Union meeting took place on 21st February, 1992 which
failed to resolve the dispute. The Union sought to refer the
issue to a third party or to have the matter dealt with by the
agreed grievance procedure. The Company refused. By letter
dated 3rd September, 1992, the Union referred the dispute to
the Labour Court under Section 20(1) of the Industrial
Relations Act, 1969.
3. Section 18 of the Company/Union agreement states as
follows:
"18. PROMOTIONS
It is Company policy when practicable, to promote from
within, all such promotions shall be at the sole
discretion of the Company, however, where ability, work
experience and suitability are equal, seniority shall be
considered. The Union reserves the right to make
representations to the Company on matters concerning
promotions.
The Company will advertise such promotions on the
Company noticeboard. Applicants must apply for such
positions in writing.
In the event the Company should determine the job
performance of a promoted employee to be unsuitable such
employees shall be placed in a more suitable position as
soon as possible".
A Labour Court investigation took place in Waterford on 24th
November, 1992.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The worker has 10 years service with the Company in
comparison with the successful applicant who had 9 months
service. He believes that he has been discriminated against
in his applications for various promotion positions within the
Company (details supplied). His work-rate and attendance
records are excellent. The worker has filled in when required
in the Q.C. department and has received written recommendation
from Q.C. co-ordinators. In addition he has developed a new
initiative to deal with spoilage at the plant which will have
substantial savings for the Company. The worker has taken
responsibility through Union representation and membership of
the corrective action team (details supplied).
2. Clause 18 of the Company/Union agreement sets out the only
criteria under which workers can be tested for a promotional
vacancy. Under each of the criteria, the worker's
capabilities are at least equal to any of the other
applicants. Therefore length of service should have been the
determining factor. The worker was the most senior applicant.
The Company must implement the agreement in full. The worker
is entitled to pursue a grievance through the agreed
procedure.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company is satisfied that it has acted fairly in
accordance with Clause 18 and is determined to uphold its
decision. It has been established by agreement that the
Company may make appointments internally and externally at its
own discretion. This principle has been upheld by the Labour
Court.
2. The Company understands the disappointment of unsuccessful
applicants but it cannot allow an unsuccessful applicant to
force his appointment to a particular position. To condone an
approach would undermine the rights of other workers. This is
in accordance with good management policy and procedure.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court, having considered the submissions made by the
parties, does not consider that there has been any element of
discrimination involved in the particular worker's failure to
obtain the posts applied for. Furthermore having regard to the
terms of the Company/Union agreement on promotional procedures the
Court does not consider it feasible to recommend that the
individual worker be promoted to the next vacancy, as proposed by
the Union. The Court, therefore, does not recommend concession of
the Union's claim.
It does, however, consider that the Company for the sake of the
maintenance of good industrial relations at the plant, should
consider how best to assist long serving employees, who have
clearly shown willingness, in fulfilling promotional ambitions.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
____________________
16th December, 1992. Deputy Chairman.
J.F./J.C.
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Jerome Forde, Court Secretary.