Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD93216 Case Number: LCR14083 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: KILLEEN CORRUGATED PRODUCTS LIMITED - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION;AUTOMOBILE GENERAL ENGINEERING MECHANICAL OPERATIVES UNION;MARINE PORT AND GENERAL WORKERS UNION |
Dispute concerning the criteria to be used in the selection of workers for promotion.
Recommendation:
5. The Court having considered the submissions of the parties and
verbal clarifications in relation to selection for promotional
vacancies believes that the application of "condition No. 7" in
the 1986 Agreement had seldom, if ever, beeen applied strictly as
written. Indeed it is clear to the Court that the custom and
practice had been for seniority to apply provided management was
satisfied that the most senior operator was capable and could be
trained.
Such a procedure does not allow management to select the most
suitable candidate where there is more than one eligible
applicant.
The Court believes that there are compelling reasons why a greater
emphasis on suitability is required particularly when the
complexity of machinery is increasing, production standards are
being raised through customer specification and operator response
is critical. Inevitably circumstances will arise where it will be
necessary for suitability to take precedence.
This situation will require some modification in approach to the
present custom and practice and the Court would urge the parties
to reach agreement on the most practical means to achieve this
objective.
In relation to the appointment that brought about this dispute,
the Court believes that the appointment made should remain in
effect particularly as the second applicant has been trained and
achieving the same pay grade and conditions.
The Court so recommends.
Division: Mr Heffernan Mr Keogh Mr O'Murchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD93216 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14083
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES: KILLEEN CORRUGATED PRODUCTS LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE IRISH BUSINESS EMPLOYERS CONFEDERATION)
and
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
AUTOMOBILE GENERAL ENGINEERING MECHANICAL OPERATIVES UNION
MARINE PORT AND GENERAL WORKERS UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning the criteria to be used in the selection of
workers for promotion.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company recently introduced a new printing machine in the
plant known as the CUIR machine. At the commencement of
operations the Company operated a single shift with 2 operators.
Subsequently Management decided to operate a two shift cycle and a
further 2 operators were recruited. The Unions objected to the
promotion of one of the operators and claimed that another worker
with more seniority should have been promoted to the position.
The Company rejected the claim. The issue was referred to the
Labour Relations Commission and a conciliation conference was held
on the 24th March, 1993. As no agreement was reached the dispute
was referred to the Labour Court by the Labour Relations
Commission on the 26th March, 1993. The Court investigated the
dispute on the 27th April, 1993.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. It is the long established custom and practice in the
Company that vacancies are filled on the basis of seniority
when there is more than one suitable applicant for a
promotional position. The worker supported by the Unions was
equally suitable and more senior to the employee who was
appointed.
2. The Unions have made many concessions to the Company over
the years. They are adamant however that, all other things
being equal, seniority must be retained in the selection of
workers for promotional posts. Over the years vacancies were
filled on the basis of seniority and suitability and gave rise
to no problems in the operation of the plant. All the workers
on the shop floor are multi skilled and very adaptable.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company appointed the worker to the promotional post
in accordance with Clause 7 of the Company/Union Agreement
which states "that promotion would be based on suitability and
seniority would only be taken into account when all other
things are equal".
2. The worker appointed had more printing experience than the
other worker. He was the most suitable candidate. It was on
this basis that the selection was made. The Company acted in
a fair and reasonable manner.
3. The worker supported by the Unions has now also been
trained on the CUIR machine and he is fully qualified to
operate it. He has provided cover on the machine as the need
arises and this need will be increased significantly in the
coming months.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court having considered the submissions of the parties and
verbal clarifications in relation to selection for promotional
vacancies believes that the application of "condition No. 7" in
the 1986 Agreement had seldom, if ever, beeen applied strictly as
written. Indeed it is clear to the Court that the custom and
practice had been for seniority to apply provided management was
satisfied that the most senior operator was capable and could be
trained.
Such a procedure does not allow management to select the most
suitable candidate where there is more than one eligible
applicant.
The Court believes that there are compelling reasons why a greater
emphasis on suitability is required particularly when the
complexity of machinery is increasing, production standards are
being raised through customer specification and operator response
is critical. Inevitably circumstances will arise where it will be
necessary for suitability to take precedence.
This situation will require some modification in approach to the
present custom and practice and the Court would urge the parties
to reach agreement on the most practical means to achieve this
objective.
In relation to the appointment that brought about this dispute,
the Court believes that the appointment made should remain in
effect particularly as the second applicant has been trained and
achieving the same pay grade and conditions.
The Court so recommends.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Heffernan
__________________
17th May, 1993. Chairman
T.O'D./J.C.
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Tom O'Dea, Court Secretary.