FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : LIEBERT INTERNATIONAL B.V. - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Keogh Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Compensation for failure to obtain promotion.
BACKGROUND:
2. The dispute concerns a worker who is a qualified fitter and has been employed by the Company for the past 15 years. The Company is engaged in the manufacture of a range of air conditioning products at its plant in Cork for computer rooms, telecommunication centres and other industrial uses. The manufacturing process involves metal fabrication, pre-treatment and painting, product sub-assembly and unit final assembly.
Early in 1998, the Company advertised a vacancy for a maintenance fitter in the maintenance department and the worker concerned applied for the job. He was unsuccessful in his application for the post. The worker who was successful is not a qualified fitter. The worker concerned was very dissatisfied with the outcome and raised the issue with Management to no avail. The worker lodged a claim for compensation which was rejected by Management. The dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commission and a conciliation conference was held on the 28th of July, 1998.
Agreement was not reached and the dispute was referred to the Labour Court by the Labour Relations Commission on the 3rd November, 1998. A Court hearing was held in Cork on the 10th of February, 1999.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
1. The worker has undertaken a number of night courses to improve his skills base in an effort to win promotion in the company. He has over the years proven to be a loyal, competent and hard working employee.
2. The worker's applications for the position of maintenance fitter has been rejected on two occasions. On the first occasion he was the only applicant, yet the company employed an external fitter.
3. On the last occasion it appears that his application failed because Management felt that he was not a good team player. The worker enjoyed a good working relationship with the other fitter in the maintenance department, who was not consulted about the worker's application.
4. Management refused to give the worker any specific explanation as to why they felt that he would not fit in other than a comment that "the Maintenance Manager may have heard something about him". The worker has always got on with whatever team of employees he has worked with and Management never had to transfer him.
5. Management would appear to have decided that the worker was not going to be promoted, as several efforts were made to dissuade him for going for this interview, by advising that the job specification was being changed from fitter to fitter's mate and then to apprentice fitter.
6. During the course of his interview which the worker claims was of short duration he was only asked three questions specifically relating to his technical knowledge, skills and qualifications.
7. Management selection process would appear to be seriously flawed and while they have the sole right to select for promotion, this right would appear to have been abused on this occasion. Had Management promoted the worker to the position of maintenance fitter, and their worst fears came to pass, i.e. he did not fit in with the rest of the team, they reserved the right under the Union Agreement to roll him back during the probationary period. Surely an employee with an unblemished record of service, who has sacrificed so much in terms of his own time by undertaking external courses, should have been given the opportunity to prove that he was in fact capable of fitting in with the maintenance team.
8. Because of his non-selection the worker estimates that the has lost in the region of £7,500 and seeks compensation for same.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
1. Individuals who enquired about the vacancy were informed that formal qualifications were not required. What was being sought was a worker familiar with the fabrication shop, a machine sense and work aptitude and an "all rounder".
2. The Company interviewed another worker and the claimant, and interviews consisted of a discussion relating to qualifications, experience as well as a general description of the requirements of the position. Following a discussion among the interview panel, applicants were considered on their technical ability, hands on experience, team work and willingness to take direction, ideas on improvement, and best for ability to fit into the maintenance team.
3. This process resulted in the other applicant being selected for the post, for a number of reasons; both technical and personal attributes. The worker who was selected was judged to have had more hands-on experience in the paint shop and tool grinding in the fabrication and weld shops. It was also felt that he would work well with the existing maintenance team.
4. The Company acted in a fair and reasonable manner. It accepts that the claimant is a good efficient conscientious worker but it selected the worker who was the most suitable one for the post on specific reasonable criteria. The Company cannot entertain the claim for compensation. It is neither valid nor realistic.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court considers that the internal interview and appointment procedures operating in this Company are subjective and very unprofessional. This situation is totally unsatisfactory and must be remedied for the future. Human Resource Management has a responsibility to ensure that all employees must be treated fairly. The Court recommends that the Company should seek professional advice in establishing new procedures.
With regard to the claim, the Court does not consider that compensation is appropriate in this case. Althought the procedures used during the claimant's application for an internal post were flawed and were such that not only did he not get the position (for the reasons stated to the Court during the hearing) but Management also confirmed that his prospects of ever securing an internal promotion were very slim. Every effort should be made to assist the claimant in devising a career plan that would remove any impediment to his advancement in the Company.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
2nd March, 1999.______________________
TOD/BCDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Tom O'Dea, Court Secretary.