Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD9320 Case Number: LCR13958 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: TEXACO IRELAND LIMITED - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
A claim that the appointment of a technically qualified sales representative is in breach of the "Status Quo" Clause of the Company/Union agreement.
Recommendation:
"Status Quo" means that where a dispute arises between employer
and employees, existing working arrangements continue while the
matter is being resolved through agreed procedures. Such a
continuation was impossible in this case because a retirement
created a vacancy, the filling of which became the issue.
"Status Quo" is a useful method for defusing industrial relations
problems but does not meet a situation where, as in this case, the
interpretation of the "status quo" is itself at issue. Agreements
frequently have a fall-back clause to cater for such a situation
but even that would have been of questionable value in this case.
In all the circumstances of this case, the Court does not consider
that the Company was in breach of agreement.
Division: Mr Heffernan Mr Keogh Mr O'Murchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD9320 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13958
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES: TEXACO IRELAND LIMITED
AND
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. A claim that the appointment of a technically qualified sales
representative is in breach of the "Status Quo" Clause of the
Company/Union agreement.
BACKGROUND:
2. 1. On the 24th January, 1992, due to the pending retirement
of two sales representatives, the company posted an internal
advertisement for two replacements. In the advertisement it
was indicated that a relevant technical qualification was
required for the position of Sales Representative (Consumer)
and that this position would also be advertised externally.
2. At a meeting on the 30th January, 1992 the Union
objected to the need for a technical qualification for this
position. On the 13th February, 1992 it wrote indicating
its intention to refer the issue to the Labour Relations
Commission and asked for the 'Status Quo' provision of the
Company/Union Agreement to be implemented. Clause 19.2
states:-
"Pending completion of negotiations the status quo will
be maintained."
3. The dispute was referred to the Labour Relations
Commission on the 10th March, 1992. Conciliation conferences
took place on the 26th May, 1992, the 9th June, 1992, and
18th June, 1992, but agreement could not be reached. The
Company appointed an external applicant on the 1st June,
1992.
4. The issue was referred by the Labour Relations
Commission to the Labour Court on the 7th January, 1993 and
the Court investigated the matter on the 2nd February, 1993.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Company was in breach of the status quo clause of
the Company/Union Agreement by filling the disputed post.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. It is essential to maintain a core of technical
expertise at sales representative level in order to remain
competitive and meet market demand.
2. The intention was to replicate the existing sales force
structure following two resignations, one of whom was
technically qualified.
3. Internal applicants were eligible to apply for the post.
4. The Company's actions are consistent with custom and
practice.
RECOMMENDATION:
"Status Quo" means that where a dispute arises between employer
and employees, existing working arrangements continue while the
matter is being resolved through agreed procedures. Such a
continuation was impossible in this case because a retirement
created a vacancy, the filling of which became the issue.
"Status Quo" is a useful method for defusing industrial relations
problems but does not meet a situation where, as in this case, the
interpretation of the "status quo" is itself at issue. Agreements
frequently have a fall-back clause to cater for such a situation
but even that would have been of questionable value in this case.
In all the circumstances of this case, the Court does not consider
that the Company was in breach of agreement.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour court
18th February, 1993 Kevin Heffernan
------------------------------------
P.O.C./M.H. Chairman
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Paul O'Connor, Court Secretary.