Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD9255 Case Number: LCR13578 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: IRISH CEMENT LIMITED - and - MANUFACTURING SCIENCE FINANCE;NATIONAL ELECTRICAL ENGINEERING TRADE UNION |
Filling of post of mechanical Maintenance Supervisor.
Recommendation:
5. The Court accepts the Union contention that once the Company
sought to change the usual method of selection, discussions should
have taken place between the parties regarding the appointment of
the Mechanical Supervisor. The Company now concurs with this view
but time has overtaken this issue as exhaustive discussions have
taken place over the past eleven months.
It is fair to say that by custom and practice the position has
been filled by assistant mechanical supervisors in the past and
the Company's proposal to appoint an engineer to it now is a
significant change. However, the change must be viewed against
the changed staffing environment in the Company under which an
engineer acted for a period as electrical supervisor and under
which craft supervisors now have access to engineering jobs.
Indeed promotion of a supervisor to engineer was the first step in
this dispute. It is the Court's view that to impose unreasonable
restrictions on the filling of consequential vacancies would be to
the detriment of both the business and the craftsmens' ambitions
to progress in the Company.
The Company gave reasons of re-organisation, staff development and
the control of over-time for the unusual step of appointing an
engineer to the position of Mechanical Supervisor in this
instance. The Court considers that in the short-term these are
realistic and acceptable reasons.
The Court, therefore, recommends that the Unions accept the
Company appointment for a period of two years and that the Company
undertake to advertise the position in the normal way at the end
of that period unless compelling reasons exist at that time which
would make appropriate further discussions with the Unions.
Division: Mr Heffernan Mr Collins Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD9255 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13578
THE LABOUR COURT
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1) INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES: IRISH CEMENT LIMITED
and
MANUFACTURING SCIENCE FINANCE
NATIONAL ELECTRICAL ENGINEERING TRADE UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Filling of post of mechanical Maintenance Supervisor.
BACKGROUND:
2. In March, 1991 the Company appointed an engineer to the
position of mechanical maintenance superintendent, to replace the
position of mechanical maintenance supervisor. The Company claims
that the title of mechanical maintenance supervisor was changed to
reflect the difference in emphasis on the position. The Unions
claim that the engineer's appointment was in breach of the
agreement reached in August, 1984 which gave assurances that any
changes in staffing levels would be the subject of local level
discussions before change would take place. The Unions sought to
have the engineer removed from the position and to have the
vacancy filled by a worker from the supervisory grades, in order
to maintain established procedures. Local level discussions
failed to resolve the issue and the matter was referred to the
Labour Relations Commission on 24th April, 1991. At a
conciliation conference held in Sligo on 22nd May, 1991 the
following agreement was reached:
(1) The appointment to the position be withdrawn.
(2) The Unions and the Company enter into early discussions
regarding the method of filling the vacancy.
(3) The position to remain vacant until these discussions
are concluded.
Further local level discussions failed to reach agreement and the
matter was referred back on 5th November, 1991 to the Labour
Relations Commission. On 6th December, 1991, the Company informed
the mechnical foremen that the engineer here concerned was taking
up the position of mechanical engineer. The mechanical foremen
refused to take instructions from the engineer. This action led
to the suspension of one of the mechanical foremen. At a
conciliation conference held on 3rd January, 1992 at the Labour
Relations Commission it was agreed that the position of mechanical
maintenance supervisor remain vacant and that the mechanical
foreman under suspension be restored to the payroll with immediate
effect. A further conciliation conference was held on 7th
January, 1992 and as no agreement could be reached the matter was
referred to the Labour Court for investigation and recommendation.
The Court hearing took place on 12th February, 1992.
UNIONS' ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. There are three assistant time-served mechanical foremen
from the shop-floor in line for the senior position. When the
senior supervisor was absent at times of holidays and
sickness, the running of the plant, the controlling of
maintenance and major repairs were supervised by one of them.
They received special thanks for their efforts from the
factory manager.
2. The three foreman have attended many training courses on
maintenance techniques, planning and particularly man
management. The last time the senior position was vacant each
assistant was interviewed. When the appointment was made they
were told that they were all in the running for the job.
3. The appointment of the engineer as mechanical
maintenance superintendent was a change from previous
practice. The position was always filled from assistant
time-served personnel. This agreed and well established
practice is the line of natural progression.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. This is a time of rapid change in the Company. It is of
the utomst importance that the position be filled by the best
candidate.
2. The superintendent reports directly to the works
engineer and has responsibility for 24 mechanical craftsmen, 2
carpenters, 16 general workers, 4 apprentices and 3 assistant
supervisors.
3. The superintendent will have responsibility for
effecting the fundamental changes required over the next few
years in the maintenance department. The candidate selected
is the only candidate with the required qualifications and
experience in the organisation, who can effect these changes.
4. 4. MSF accepted the rationalisation scheme in 1986 which
committed them to co-operation with change. This co-operation
attracts an ongoing annual payment which is pensionable. No
agreement exists with any Union on the filling of supervisory
positions.
5. The equivalent position in the electrial department has
been filled by an engineer. Subsequently a supervisor was
appointed to fill the position arising from the departure of
the engineer.
6. Many supervisors have been promoted to the engineering
ranks without any industrial relations problems.
7. With reference to the agreement of August, 1984, no
changes in staffing levels is taking place. The agreement
only requires discussion on the issue and discussions have
taken place at great length.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court accepts the Union contention that once the Company
sought to change the usual method of selection, discussions should
have taken place between the parties regarding the appointment of
the Mechanical Supervisor. The Company now concurs with this view
but time has overtaken this issue as exhaustive discussions have
taken place over the past eleven months.
It is fair to say that by custom and practice the position has
been filled by assistant mechanical supervisors in the past and
the Company's proposal to appoint an engineer to it now is a
significant change. However, the change must be viewed against
the changed staffing environment in the Company under which an
engineer acted for a period as electrical supervisor and under
which craft supervisors now have access to engineering jobs.
Indeed promotion of a supervisor to engineer was the first step in
this dispute. It is the Court's view that to impose unreasonable
restrictions on the filling of consequential vacancies would be to
the detriment of both the business and the craftsmens' ambitions
to progress in the Company.
The Company gave reasons of re-organisation, staff development and
the control of over-time for the unusual step of appointing an
engineer to the position of Mechanical Supervisor in this
instance. The Court considers that in the short-term these are
realistic and acceptable reasons.
The Court, therefore, recommends that the Unions accept the
Company appointment for a period of two years and that the Company
undertake to advertise the position in the normal way at the end
of that period unless compelling reasons exist at that time which
would make appropriate further discussions with the Unions.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Heffernan
__________________
6th March, 1992
F.B./U.S. Chairman
NOTE:
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Fran Brennan, Court Secretary.