FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : TEXACO (IRELAND) LIMITED (REPRESENTED BY THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Owens Employer Member: Mr Keogh Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Dispute concerning the appointment of an arbitrator.
BACKGROUND:
2. The issue relates to a former worker who was employed by the Company as a civil engineer. He left the Company in December, 1996, under a voluntary severance scheme. The Union claims that during his employment the worker was disadvantaged, in terms of financial reward and career progression, because of the inadequate application by Management of the agreed Staff Appraisal Scheme. The Union maintains that Stage 4 of the Grievance and Disciplinary procedure should be invoked whereby an agreed independent arbitrator could be appointed to review the professional aspects of the issue. The Company was unwilling to agree to this course of action on the grounds that the worker's duties had already been assessed by the competent authorities.
The dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commission and a conciliation conference was held on the 27th November, 1996. Agreement was not possible and the dispute was referred to the Labour Court by the Labour Relations Commission on the 6th January, 1997. A Court hearing was held on the 6th March, 1997.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The employee concerned was involved in a wide range of work and his professional competence was never in question. His abilities and extensive experience enabled him to provide a more sophisticated impact into projects than would normally be required.
2. The worker was not given due credit under the Staff Appraisal Scheme in 1989, 1991 and 1993 for the exceptional work completed and therefore he lost a potential 2.5% extra bonus. His career prospects were also damaged.
3. When a promotion to Manager-Engineering became vacant the worker was unsuccessful in his application because credit was not given to him for exceptional performance in various projects.
4. The worker highlighted serious deficiencies in different projects at various locations throughout the country, both in relation to the quality of materials used and the method of operation of the projects (details to the Court). However, he was removed to other duties and more expedient solutions to problems highlighted by him were found. The worker received little credit for his timely and professional interventions. His level of competence and professional integrity were seen by some of the Management as a threat to their own positions.
5. The worker was significantly under-utilised relative to his level of skills, undermined in his day to day work, and received little appreciation when he solved problems through his professional skills. This resulted in an exceptional and committed employee (in his late forties) forced through stress to give up his secure job. The worker's frustration with Management led his medical advisors to conclude that he was suffering from work related stress.
6. The Union claims that the worker be suitably compensated for:-
(a) any loss he suffered in the three Staff Appraisals in 1989, 1991, and 1993, the loss of the promotional outlet, the ensuing stress which caused him to leave the employment
(b) or the appointment of a suitable arbitrator.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The worker was appraised under the agreed Staff Appraisal Scheme on a number of occasions and showed a satisfactory performance. The Company investigated the worker's claims that he was disadvantaged by the appraisal scheme. These assertions could not be substantiated.
2. The worker has been at the top of his salary scale since 1984 and always received the appropriate bonus. He did not suffer a financial loss. The Company offers a comprehensive and highly competitive remuneration package for engineers (details to the Court).
3. All engineering staff including the worker concerned are treated in a fair and equitable manner. The employee concerned undertook the same duties as other engineers in the Company, and was not asked to undertake any work which other engineers were not asked to do.
4. While the worker applied for a number of posts, in the one instance where he went through the full selection process, he was unsuccessful and a more suitable candidate was appointed.
5. The Company does not accept that the worker was disadvantaged with the duties allocated to him. Work was distributed at all times in a fair and reasonable manner.
6. In 1994 the worker's complaint relating to the level and type of work allocated to the employee concerned was the subject of a review by the Institute of Engineers of Ireland (I.E.I.). Management met with the appropriate Committee of the I.E.I. and discussed the matter in detail. The I.E.I. indicated to the Company that it did not feel the worker was victimised in any way.
7. During the course of his employment the worker pursued his grievance issues at all levels of the Company, both nationally and internationally and also pursued the issue externally with the I.E.I. In each appropriate case the matter was investigated and addressed back to the worker.
8. The most competent bodies have addressed these grievances, therefore, the Company sees no reason why an independent arbitrator should be appointed. The Company treated the worker in a fair and equitable manner. He had full access to all reasonable procedures and was not disadvantaged or victimised in any way by the Company.
9. The worker left the Company under the voluntary severance scheme. Management were never made aware that the worker was forced to leave through work related stress and the Company totally rejects this contention.
RECOMMENDATION:
Having considered the submissions from the parties, the Court has concluded that the Company's position should be upheld.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Evelyn Owens
27th March, 1997______________________
T.O'D./S.G.Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Tom O'Dea, Court Secretary.