FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : BRITTAS PLASTICS LTD. (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS CONFEDERATION) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Employer Member: Worker Member: |
1. Dispute relating to A Quality Assurance position.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company which is part of the Clondalkin Group manufactures heavy duty sacks for the fertiliser, horticultural, fuel and animal feed markets. It employs 24 workers at its location in Saggart, County Dublin.
In order to achieve ISO 9000 by the end of 1996 the Company identified the need for a Quality Assurance Manager. The Company decided to recruit externally as it considered that it did not have a person with the technical knowledge within the existing workforce.
The Union claims that the position of quality assurance manager should be designated as a unionised position. It argues that the position had been previously held by an ex-shift supervisor (position made redundant in 1985) and that one of its members could have been provided with the training required to carry out the duties of the position.
The matter was referred to the Labour Relations Commission. A conciliation conference was held on 16th February, 1996. As no agreement could be reached the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on 12th March, 1996 under Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on 26th April, 1996.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Company chose to recruit externally wihtout giving any consideration or opportunity to experienced staff to train with a view to filling the position. It is the Union's view that there is a linkage with the previous quality assurance position.
2. In 1986 the Company implemented a rationalisation programme which resulted in a reduction in the workforce from 34 to 24. A number of hourly paid workers and 3 supervisors and a quality controller were made redundant which effectively removed a complete layer of middle management. The supervisors and the quality controller were salaried paid staff and were members of the Union.
3. Whilst the Union indicated that it was disappointed, it agreed to accept the Company's decision. It advised management that in view of the previous position and the lack of promotional opportunities the position would have to be a unionised position. Management did not raise any objections.
4. It is the Union's understanding that the Quality Assurance Manager had no objection to joining the Union. In the circumstances Management's position on this issue is totally unreasonable.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Union has acknowledged the importance of achieving the speedy introduction of ISO 9000 and that it would improve the job security of the workforce. Despite this the Union has refused to co-operate with the introduction of the ISO 9000 unless the Company agrees to link it to the issue of a sick pay scheme.
2. There are no valid grounds for the Union's claim that, because a position in quality was occupied by a union member in 1985 that the current position of Quality Assurance Manager, should become a unionised position. There are obvious differences in both the circumstances and responsibilities between these two positions.
3. The quality inspector position in 1985 was a position created for a displaced shift foreman. The responsibilities attached to this position were not as onerous as those attached to the current position of quality control manager. This position was made redundant in 1985 with the responsibilities assumed by both other members of management and the machine operators.
4. The current position of quality control manager is specifically related to the requirement to match customer demands and competitor ability in the area of quality. The position requires the qualifications, technical ability and skill, to introduce a complete quality system and to monitor and manage it. This was not the reality in 1985.
5. The Company is concerned that the Union's claim is an attempt to curtail management's right to recruit and appoint the most suitably skilled and qualified candidates for what the Company designate a management position. There was no suitable candidate employed internally, from either the management or hourly paid staff, who had the same qualifications or technical skills, to match those of the appointee.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court considered the written and oral submissions of the parties.
The Court is of the view that the position in dispute required qualifications and technical ability not available at the time within the Company.
However, the Court noted the Company's offer to review this position if the present post holder's role was expanded, and to endeavour to ensure that an internal candidate was available.
The Court, therefore recommends that the Employees accept the present situation and co-operate with the post holder given the above assurance from the Company.
The Court would also recommend that in future management would consult more freely with its Employees in similar situations in order to avoid any ambiguity.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Finbarr Flood
20th May, 1996______________________
F.B./S.G.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Fran Brennan, Court Secretary.