Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD95467 Case Number: LCR14932 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: CABLELINK LTD. (IBEC) - and - AMALGAMATED TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS UNION |
Non-advertisement of vacancies. 1.b Redeployment of a worker.
Recommendation:
1. The Court notes the Company policy of advertising internally
all promotional posts. With regard to lateral movement, the
Court recommends that the Company place a notice on the board
inviting applicants to any vacancy as it arises. On receipt
of applications, the Company will have the right to select
from the applicants, who they consider the most suitable for
the vacancy in question, without the necessity to hold
interviews.
2. Mr. Norton-Redeployment.
The Court understands Mr. Norton's disappointment and accepts
that his redeployment might have been handled more
sensitively. In the circumstances, the Court considers that
the Company's position is not unreasonable and accordingly
does not recommend in favour of the Union's claim.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Pierce Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD95467 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14932
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES:
CABLELINK LTD.
AND
AMALGAMATED TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS UNION
SUBJECT:
1.a Non-advertisement of vacancies.
1.b Redeployment of a worker.
BACKGROUND:
2.a The Union is concerned about the method used by the Company
in filling vacancies within the organisation. There is a
perception amongst staff that there is favouritism towards a
certain group of staff. The Company reject the allegation
that there is any favouritism towards any particular staff
and stated that it was Company policy to advertise all
promotional posts, but not posts of a non-promotional nature.
The Union is claiming that all vacancies should be
advertised.
2.b In 1992, the Company were granted a licence to operate a new
transmission system in Dublin. The system called "Microwave
Distribution Systems (M.D.S.) provided a multichannel service
to areas not covered by cable television. A worker moved
from the maintenance area to the M.D.S. section. He remained
there from October, 1991 to April, 1994 when he was informed
by the Company to revert to his former duties. The Union
objected to the manner in which the worker was redeployed and
that he was not given the opportunity to apply for the
technician's post in M.D.S. The Company rejected the Union's
claim and stated that the worker had not got the
qualifications or the technical background for a job as a
technician in the Company.
3. As no agreement was possible on the two issues, the dispute
was referred to the conciliation service of the Labour
Relations Commission (The Company declined to have the
issues referred to a Rights Commissioner). A number of
conciliation conferences were held on the 16th and 24th June,
1994 and 22nd September, 1994 and 24th May, 1995 to resolve
other issues in addition to the two issues still unresolved.
No agreement was possible and both sides agreed to refer the
dispute to the Labour Court. The dispute was referred to the
Labour Court on 24th July, 1995. The Court investigated the
dispute on 25th September, 1995 (the earliest date suitable
to both parties).
NON-ADVERTISING OF VACANCIES
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3.1 The Union objects to the method used by the Company in
filling vacancies in the organisation. The Union wants all
vacancies advertised in-house whether promotional or
otherwise, so that all staff have an opportunity to apply.
2 The Union is concerned about two recent promotions (1) Base
Controller, and (2) Installation Executive which the Union
considers as promotional positions. The workers were not
given the opportunity to apply for these positions. The
Company considers these positions as lateral moves, and
therefore, does not consider it necessary to advertise them.
3 The Union has proposed that all vacancies be advertised on
the Company's notice board. This would be a fair and
equitable solution to all concerned and give an opportunity
to those who wish to apply for these positions.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4.1 It is the Company's policy to promote employees from within
the organisation. The exception is where the necessary
expertise or knowledge was not available within the Company.
Otherwise all promotional vacancies are advertised.
2 The Company rejects the Union's claim that staff are denied
the opportunity for transfer or appointment to the basic
clerical grade. The Company has set up a registering system
for those who wish to transfer from one section to another.
The Personnel Department is notified of any employee who
wishes to transfer and their application is formally
recorded.
3 To advertise all posts at the basic clerical level would
cause a serious and unnecessary administrative burden on the
Company. The Company's procedures for recruitment are fair
and equitable and every employee is given the opportunity to
apply for promotional posts.
4 As far as the Company is concerned, it would be costly,
inefficient and impractical to extend the advertising of
posts in the basic clerical grades.
REDEPLOYMENT OF A WORKER
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3.1 The worker has been employed as a cableman by the Company
since 1972. He has vast experience in the provision of
cablelink television. He was advised by the technical
manager to transfer into the new area of Microwave
Distribution Systems (M.D.S.), as this would improve his
career prospects within the Company.
2 The worker continued to work in the M.D.S. section for two
years. He carried out every duty associated with the new
system. There was no complaint from management regarding the
ability of the worker to carry out his duties.
3 The Union does not accept the Company's claim that there was
insufficient work for the claimant. Two technicians were
transferred from the maintenance section to the M.D.S.
section and the worker was given notice to return to the
maintenance division. The Company has given no consideration
to the experience gained by the worker during his two-year
period in the M.D.S. section.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4.1 The duties of a cableman include the replacement of cables
and other components of the cable TV network, as directed by
an inspector or technician. He also acts as support for
technicians engaged in technical maintenance. The worker is
not a technician and does not have the necessary skills,
background or experience to continue working in the M.D.S.
area.
2 The requirements in the M.D.S. area have changed
considerably. A greater degree of technical expertise is
required. The worker does not possess these qualities.
3 The Company encourages staff to undertake appropriate
training or study courses to equip them for technician posts.
This facility is available to the worker.
4 The worker has suffered no loss of earnings arising out of
his redeployment. The Company had looked at other areas of
opportunity for the worker but no suitable vacancy was
available. The Company rejects the Union's claim that the
worker was treated unfairly.
RECOMMENDATION:
1. The Court notes the Company policy of advertising internally
all promotional posts. With regard to lateral movement, the
Court recommends that the Company place a notice on the board
inviting applicants to any vacancy as it arises. On receipt
of applications, the Company will have the right to select
from the applicants, who they consider the most suitable for
the vacancy in question, without the necessity to hold
interviews.
2. Mr. Norton-Redeployment.
The Court understands Mr. Norton's disappointment and accepts
that his redeployment might have been handled more
sensitively. In the circumstances, the Court considers that
the Company's position is not unreasonable and accordingly
does not recommend in favour of the Union's claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
11th October, 1995 Evelyn Owens
L.W./A.K. -------------
Chairman
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Larry Wisely, Court Secretary.