FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : DAIRYGOLD CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED - AND - MANDATE DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Keogh Worker Member: Mr Rorke |
1. Promotion on seniority.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Union represents approximately 150 workers who are employed in various categories, from part-time up to regional management. The majority of the workers are employed as shop assistants, assistant managers and managers. The shop assistants are divided into three categories - part-time, flexi full-time and full-time staff.
The Union's claim is that the filling of all promotional positions covered by the Society/Union procedural agreement of 1996 should be on a strict seniority basis. The Society has a policy of appointing the most suitable candidate.
The dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commission and a conciliation conference took place on the 11th of December, 1997. As the parties did not reach agreement, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 28th of April, 1998. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 14th of October, 1998, in Cork.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. There is no difference in the work being carried out at shop assistant level, whether it is at part-time or full-time. However, the Society insists on filling them on the basis of competitive interview. Because there is no difference, the positions should be filled on a strict seniority level.
2. The Union signed the procedural agreement on the understanding that Company policy would be applied consistently. Another union in the Society threatened industrial action when it appeared that a promotion was not going to be made on a seniority basis.
3. The Union believes that its members in management areas are suitably qualified for promotion through seniority, should positions arise.
SOCIETY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. Clause 28 of the procedural agreement in 1996 states
"all appointments and promotions will be made solely at
the discretion of management."
The Society must have the right to promote the most suitable candidate.
2. The Union's claim that there is no difference in the work being done at shop assistant level is not correct. Work requirements differ, depending on whether shop assistants are working in grocery, fashion, hardware or agri-sales.
3. The highest calibre of staff, with good interpersonal skills, are required to fill management positions. The Society could not promote someone who lacked staff management skills, simply because they had seniority.
RECOMMENDATION:
In relation to this dispute, the Court considers that any procedure for the filling of promotional positions must be applied consistently if it is to be considered fair. It was in the belief that the employer intended to act consistently in relation to all such posts that the parties agreed a provision in the 1996 agreement which conceded to management an unqualified discretion in making promotions. The employer's subsequent departure from their stated position undermined the basis of that agreement and lead directly to the dispute now before the Court.
The Court appreciates the basis on which the employer felt constrained to act as they did in filling a post on the basis of seniority only. Nonetheless, it would be unfair and inimical to orderly industrial relations if it appeared that a concession made to one group under threat of industrial action was later denied to others who either lacked the capacity to cause disruption or refrained from so doing.
The Court considers that promotional posts should be filled on the basis of suitability, but service should also be considered in cases of equal suitability between candidates. The Court recommends that the parties agree arrangements for the filling of future promotions in line with that general principle, which are capable of consistent application in all situations.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
9th November 1998______________________
C.O'N./D.T.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Ciaran O'Neill, Court Secretary.