FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : TELECOM EIREANN - AND - A WORKER DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Flood Employer Member: Mr Pierce Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Method of selection for promotion to Technical Team Leader Post after redeployment.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker concerned commenced employment with the Company as a Trainee Technician on the 9th of September, 1969. He is currently employed as a Technical Officer (TO) in the Company's Service Quality Division. TOs operate in teams headed by a Technical Team Leader (TTL) and are responsible for the maintenance of the Company's switching and transmission network, digital exchanges and various commissioning and testing work.
In 1996 the Company and the Communications Workers' Union (CWU) concluded an agreement on the technological upgrade of the Company's switching network. The agreement provided employment opportunities in new areas of work for TOs and TTLs.
The worker concerned was a successful applicant in this process and transferred from the Dublin district to a TO position in the Services Quality Division in November, 1996. There are 2 other TOs in the team. The position of TTL is vacant and is filled by the worker concerned (as the senior TO) on an 'acting' basis.
The worker claims that during the course of an information meeting in late 1996 he was led to believe by management that a confined competition between the 3 TOs in the team would be the method used to fill the TTL post and that there was no reason why the senior TO would not get the post. It was on this basis that the worker accepted the TO position in the team. Management rejects the worker's claim.
The worker argues that the Company changed its position following the implementation of a new agreement with the CWU in August, 1997 following which it informed the Team that the position of TTL would be filled by open competition.
The team objected to the new method of selection and lodged an official appeal but to no avail. As progress could not be made the worker referred the matter to the Labour Court on the 14th of October, 1997 under Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969 and agreed to be bound by the Court's recommendation. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 12th of December, 1997.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. Prior to the selection taking place in each district, an information meeting was held to outline to staff what the structure of the new teams would be and the type of work involved. At these meetings it was stated that the structure of the teams would be a TTL and two TOs.
2. There was considerable interest in the TTL position. It was discussed at length and clear statements were made by management as to the method of selection to be used in this particular case. Everyone at the meeting was aware that the team was going to be filled by 3 TOs and that no existing TTL had taken up the offer to be part of the team.
3. The worker was led to believe by management that the senior TO in the team would get the TTL position. In was on this basis that he accepted the TO position in the team.
4. The new agreement came into operation on the 8th of August, 1997 but it was decided to fill the TTL position retrospectively using the new agreement. It was also decided to increase the size of the team to accommodate the new TTL.
5. There were 3 districts in which the team comprised of three TOs only, with the senior man acting. These were Galway, Portlaoise and Dublin. It was stated at the information meetings in these districts that the TTL position would be filled on the same basis as was proposed at the Dublin meeting i.e. a confined competition, and was the way the selection was ultimately made.
6. The worker had an expectation that he would be appointed to the TTL position. The expectation was based on information received at the Dublin meeting and by what happened in Portlaoise and Galway.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company has no knowledge of any undertaking or indication given to the worker that he would receive any TTL position following his transfer from Dublin District. The discussions and negotiations being conducted with the CWU would have precluded the Company from giving any such undertaking or indication. Under the arrangement agreed with the CWU there is no avenue for direct promotion from TO to TTL. All TTL promotion appointments are by competition among TOs.
2. The worker made a number of telephone calls to the Employee Relations Department, between October 1996 and May 1997, enquiring if any decision had been taken regarding the method of filling the Service Quality TTL position. On each occasion he was informed that the issue was subject to discussions with the CWU and that no decision had yet been taken. He was therefore fully aware that he had no guaranteed entitlement to any TTL position. At no stage did the worker indicate that he had been given to understand that any TTL position would be his.
3. The agreed method of filling TTL positions in Dublin District and Headquarters does not preclude the worker from getting a promotion. As a candidate for the panel, he has an equal opportunity with all other eligible candidates.
4. The worker's eligibility for TTL positions remains precisely that which would have obtained if he had remained in Dublin District. As a TO in Dublin District he would have been eligible to apply for the panel in precisely the same circumstances which now apply in his capacity as a TO in Service Quality. In no sense, could it be inferred that the worker is being denied promotion opportunities.
5. Telecom Eireann is a highly unionised Company - over 95% of the Company's technical staff are members of the CWU. The filling of promotional positions can be an extremely sensitive industrial relations issue, especially in the context of the Company's programme to significantly reduce staff numbers. Arrangements for filling TTL positions, and indeed all promotional outlets, are in accordance with arrangements agreed with the recognised trade unions.
6. The Company submits that the procedures in place for filling 29 TTL positions are fair and reasonable, and are in accordance with duly processed industrial relations agreements. Any departure from the agreed arrangements would have serious industrial relations implications.
RECOMMENDATION:
While there is a disagreement between the parties in relation to the exact wording used at the meeting in September 1996 in relation to the future appointments, the Court having considered the written and oral submissions does not recommend concession of the claimant's case.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Finbarr Flood
9th January, 1998______________________
F.B./S.G.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Fran Brennan, Court Secretary.