Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD93105 Case Number: AD9317 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: MARKS AND SPENCER (IRELAND) LIMITED - and - IRISH DISTRIBUTIVE AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRADE UNION |
Appeal against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation No. BC421/92 regarding a supervisory post.
Recommendation:
5. The Court having considered the views expressed by the parties
in their oral and written submissions considers that given the
circumstances surrounding the transfer in this case the Company
should have anticipated the perception which was likely to be
created and taken steps to ensure the staff were fully appraised
of the change and its implications and of the proposals to alter
the structure.
The Court however notes that in future the Company in similar
circumstances would approach the matter in a manner which would be
more conducive to gaining the acceptance of the staff.
The Court also notes the Company procedures for dealing with
applicants for promotion.
With the exception of the above comments the Court does not find
grounds to amend the Rights Commissioner's Recommendation, and
accordingly upholds it and rejects the appeal of the Union.
The Court so decides.
Division: MrMcGrath Mr Keogh Mr O'Murchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD93105 APPEAL DECISION NO. AD1793
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES: MARKS AND SPENCER (IRELAND) LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE IRISH BUSINESS EMPLOYERS CONFEDERATION)
and
IRISH DISTRIBUTIVE AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRADE UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Appeal against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation No.
BC421/92 regarding a supervisory post.
BACKGROUND:
2. 1. In October, 1992, the Company promoted a worker from one
of its Northern Ireland outlets the position of Deputy Manager
in its Grafton Street Store. The wife of the Deputy Manager
was a trained supervisor and transferred to the Company's Mary
Street Store.
2. A dispute arose over the supervisor's appointment to Mary
Street. The Union claimed that it blocked a promotional
outlet for its members. The Company maintained that it did
not have a sufficient number of trained supervisors and that
the temporary appointment would allow for the training of one
of the workers to take over the position when the supervisor
moved on (18 months).
3. The dispute was referred to the Rights Commissioner's
Service and an investigation took place on 18th January, 1993.
The following recommendation issued on 27th January, 1993.
"Having investigated the matter and having given full and
careful consideration to the points made by both parties
I have come to the following conclusions:-
1. I am satisfied that the issue in question has arisen
because of a quite unique situation in which
management have behaved with care and consideration.
2. Therefore the temporary arrangements entered into by
management should be upheld.
3. Concerning the modus operandi for the filling of all
future promotional outlets in the Republic I suggest
that the parties should try and achieve workable
consensus on this matter balancing the quite
legitimate prerogative of management in the making
of appointments with the understandable expectations
of staff.
4. With regard to the issue of the staff member who is
currently undergoing training then I would propose
that should this person satisfactorily complete the
training in question then the particular post, when
vacated, should be assigned to the person in
question.
5. With regard to the issue of "transferring in staff"
for promotional outlets I cannot recommend that this
practice should cease since I am satisfied that the
prerogative is exercised by management judiciously
in the interest of the business".
4. The Rights Commissioner's Recommendation was appealed to
the Labour Court, under Section 13(9) of the Industrial
Relations Act, 1969, by the Union, by letter dated 8th
February, 1993. A Labour Court investigation took place on
10th March, 1993 (the earliest date suitable to both parties).
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. Traditionally, the appointment of supervisors in the
Company is by means of internal promotions. The change in
the method of appointment in this instance is causing concern
to the workers.
2. The Union is seeking that all supervisory posts be
advertised and filled internally. This was the agreed method
until the dispute arose. The post in question should be
filled by a staff member under training and the practice of
"transferring in" workers for supervisory posts should cease.
3. The Union is unable to accept the Rights Commissioner's
Recommendation as it endorses a continuation of the practice
in dispute. The Rights Commissioner suggested that the
parties try to achieve a workable consensus on the matter and
the Court is asked to recommend that the parties seek a local
resolution of the problem.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The sales floor supervision structure has been under
review for some time (details supplied). The appointment of a
Deputy Manager to Grafton Street, whose wife was a fully
trained supervisor, allowed the Company to resolve its
supervision staffing problems and to train 2 workers as
supervisors. When the supervisor leaves, the new supervisory
structure will be staffed from the Mary Street Store.
2. The Mary Street outlet had a vacancy for a fully appointed
supervisor, not a trainee. As the store had no trained
supervisors, it was not appropriate for the vacancy to be
advertised. The supervisor's arrival precipitated the
creation of a supervisor post and an appointment of a trainee
supervisor was made on 1st January, 1993.
3. The Company reserves the right to manage structures and
senior staff appointments as appropriate.
DECISION:
5. The Court having considered the views expressed by the parties
in their oral and written submissions considers that given the
circumstances surrounding the transfer in this case the Company
should have anticipated the perception which was likely to be
created and taken steps to ensure the staff were fully appraised
of the change and its implications and of the proposals to alter
the structure.
The Court however notes that in future the Company in similar
circumstances would approach the matter in a manner which would be
more conducive to gaining the acceptance of the staff.
The Court also notes the Company procedures for dealing with
applicants for promotion.
With the exception of the above comments the Court does not find
grounds to amend the Rights Commissioner's Recommendation, and
accordingly upholds it and rejects the appeal of the Union.
The Court so decides.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Tom McGrath
___________________
26th March, 1993. Deputy Chairman
J.F./J.C.