FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : BROTHER INDUSTRIES (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Pierce Worker Member: Mr Rorke |
1. Appeal of Rights Commissioner's Recommendation IR465/99/JH, concerning filling of vacancy.
BACKGROUND:
2. Brother Industries (Ireland) Limited is a wholly owned subsidiary of Brother UK. The Company employs 130 people in the production of printed circuit boards and has operated in Drogheda since 1989.
The worker concerned commenced employment with the Company in 1984 and was appointed to the QA Department (Quality Assurance). He was promoted to the position of QA inspector in 1996.
The dispute concerns the Union's claim for compensation on behalf of the worker for the manner in which the position of supervisor was filled following the promotion of the previous supervisor in 1997. The Union argues that the worker applied for the position and was told that the position was not being filled. The Company's position is that a vacancy arose for a quality/environmental technician and was advertised externally and in local newspapers in November, 1998. It states that the job originally involved some work in the QA area and the Company decided to incorporate both the QA and the environmental elements into the one appointment and the worker did not apply for the position.
The dispute was referred to a Rights Commissioner for investigation and recommendation. The Rights Commissioner's conclusions and recommendation are as follows:
"The Company's handling of the situation was particularly insensitive. I accept that the worker gave the utmost co-operation over a two - year period and did assist the Company in providing the necessary service in the absence of a supervisor being present at all times and the technician post which they subsequently filled. They were fully aware of the worker's desire to be a supervisor and while they are entitled to fill posts with the best candidates, the failure to inform the worker, privately, of their decision regarding the filling of the supervisory position was very poor and has caused palpable resentment. In all of the circumstances I consider that the worker is entitled to some re-dress for the co-operation he gave over a two - year period and for the manner in which he was treated and the withdrawal of the promotional opportunity without any prior notification. I also consider that in his own interest, the worker should avail of the opportunity to obtain qualifications and further training at the Company's expense and that he should continue to provide the level of co-operation and assistance as he has heretofore.
On the basis of the evidence provided at the hearing, taking into account the conclusions set out above, I recommend that the worker should:
1. Receive £1,000 in respect of his claim and the co-operation and assistance provided by him in the absence of a supervisor.
2. Take up the Company's offer of training, at the Company's expense.
3. Continue to provide the necessary co-operation and assistance in the performance of his duties as he has in the past."
The worker was named in the Recommendation.
The Rights Commissioner's Recommendation was appealed by the Company to the Labour Court on the 30th of August, 1999, under Section 13 (9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. The Court heard the appeal on the 27th of October, 1999.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The worker applied for the vacant supervisor's position both verbally and in writing and was informed that the position was not being filled. In the following two years he carried out duties for various periods that were more in line with the position of supervisor.
2. The supervisor's position was not advertised internally and the worker was not aware that a new supervisor had been appointed until he had started.
3. The worker is concerned that the action he has taken will affect his overall promotional prospects in the future.
4. The Rights Commissioner acknowledged that the Company's handling of the situation was insensitive in particular in its failure to inform the worker privately of its decision regarding the filling of the post.
5. The worker is seeking compensation for the unfair treatment by the Company due to the manner in which the position was filled.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. A position for a quality/environmental technician was advertised internally and in the local newspapers in November, 1998, following the departure of an environmental technician. The job originally involved some work in the QA area and the Company decided to incorporate both the QA and the environmental elements into the one appointment. The worker did not apply for this position.
2. Interviews were held for the position and the Company decided to appoint a person with the extra responsibilities in customer care and customer relations, and in the role of supervisor who would report to the QA Manager. This appointment reflected the added responsibilities and the role of supervisor, which included customer relations, interpreting QA information, correcting customer problems and advice on QA issues.
3. In making its decision, Management required experience in the area of customer relations, experience in the technical field of QA, experience in the setting up of quality systems and the setting up of environmental systems which relate to the industry. Other requirements included leadership and decision-making abilities as well as technical qualifications.
4. The Company must maintain the right to select suitable and technically qualified candidates for such appointments. The worker was not technically qualified but this did not disqualify him from applying for the job.
5. When the appointment was made the role and responsibility of the worker's job did not change. He operated in the same manner as before with the only exception being that he would report to the supervisor instead of the quality assurance manager.
6. The Company has indicated it is willing to help the worker to improve his qualifications and technical skills in order to help him be better prepared for any promotional opportunities that may arise in the future. It is satisfied that it has treated him in a reasonable and fair manner and requests that the Rights Commissioner's Recommendation be overturned.
DECISION:
The Court considered the written and oral submissions of both parties to this appeal. The Rights Commissioner recommended a lump sum payment in respect of his claim regarding unfair treatment and for the co-operation and assistance provided by him in the absence of a supervisor. The Court has been unable to establish definitively whether the employee took on any extra responsibilities following the "promotion" of the QA Supervisor, but does agree that he was treated very insensitively.
With regard to the claim regarding the filling of the supervisory position, the Court accepts the Company's contention that without attaining suitable qualifications, promotions for senior posts are difficult to attain and in any event are not automatic.
The Court decides that the Rights Commissioner's Recommendation should be amended as follows:
- the lump sum awarded in number 1 of the Recommendation should be £750 instead of £1,000.
The Court so decides.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
26th November, 1999.______________________
FB/BCDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Fran Brennan, Court Secretary.