FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : AN POST - AND - COMMUNICATIONS WORKERS' UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Employer Member: Worker Member: |
1. Alleged denial of promotion.
BACKGROUND:
2. 1. The case before the Court involves a claim by the Union that the Company refused to promote one of its members from Postman to Post Office Clerk (POC).
2. The Union claims that the worker acted at various times in the grade of Post Office Clerk from 16th November, 1992 to 31st December, 1993. In 1995 he was successful in a confined competition for Post Office Clerk and was informed that he would be taking up his clerical duties in Westport.
3. The Company subsequently informed the Union that the worker would not be appointed as a POC. It stated that in a competition held in 1995 to fill vacancies in the POC Grade, the worker was considered suitable for promotion in relation to his aptitude test and subsequent interview. However, this was subject to a satisfactory report from his supervisor in Sligo on his work performance/conduct and sick leave record. When the report was received the worker was deemed to be unsuitable for promotion to POC on the grounds of poor work performance.
4. The Union claims that the disqualification of the worker from promotion to POC while he was still acting in that capacity, was a breach of the Agreed Recruitment Procedures.
5. As no agreement was possible between the parties, the Union sought to have the dispute referred to the Labour Relations Commission for investigation and recommendation. The Company objected to such an investigation. The Union referred the dispute to the Labour Court under Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969 and agreed to be bound by the Court's recommendation. The Court investigated the dispute on the 7th October, 1996.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Company should not have disqualified the worker from promotion, as he was acting in the Grade of POC. It was a breach of the Agreed Recruitment Procedures.
2. The worker did not receive the same level of training as that given to full-time Post Office Clerks.
3. The worker was never given either a written or verbal warning regarding his work performance. Furthermore, the worker continues to train other employees as temporary Post Office Clerks.
4. The worker received a glowing reference from his former supervisor in Sligo as to his suitability to perform the duties of a POC.
5. The number of misbalances attributed to the worker is five. This is below the threshold used by the Company for fully trained full-time Post Office Clerks.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The worker was considered suitable for promotion to POC following an interview and aptitude test, subject to a satisfactory report on his sick leave, conduct, and work performance. The report from his supervisor was found to be unsatisfactory for promotion purposes.
2. While acting as POC, the worker failed to balance his counter stock and cash on twenty-one occasions.
3. The Company rejects the Union's claim that it is in breach of the Agreed Recruitment Procedures. It is within its rights in taking into account all aspects of an employees work performance for promotion purposes.
4. The Company's policy is to select the best possible candidates for promotion through fair and open competition for all concerned. The decision not to promote the worker was made objectively based on his known work performance.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court having considered all of the issues raised by the parties in their oral and written submissions finds that the practice of listing the posting of those successful in the assessment while the offer of a post is only provisional is confusing and not conducive to the maintenance of a good industrial relations environment.
The Court has noted that this is not the first time the procedure has given rise to dispute.
Accordingly the Court would recommend that this procedure be reviewed in consultation with the Union with a view to avoiding similar disputes in the future.
It is the view of the Court,exceptionally in this case, that the employee concerned should be included at the end of the list for appointment and following appointment and the requisite training his progress can be reviewed during the probationary period.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Tom McGrath
31st October, 1996______________________
L.W./D.T.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Larry Wisely, Court Secretary.