LCR16563

3) Seniority Issues.

BACKGROUND:

2. The dispute concerns a worker who has been employed by the Company since 1980, and was employed for 14 years as a Production Supervisor. Following a plant wide re-organisation in 1999, the Company appointed the worker to the post of Production Controller. The worker's status and salary did not change but he sustained a significant loss in terms of access to overtime earnings. The worker also claimed that the transfer had an affect on his seniority. Management rejected the claims, stating that the worker is one amongst many staff in Management posts whose roles and responsibilities had to be re-organised as part of a Company wide plan to respond to increasing competitive pressures. The worker sought to refer the dispute to a Rights Commissioner for investigation but the Company objected to such a referral. On the 22nd of May, 2000, the worker referred the dispute to the Labour Court under Section 20 (1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969 and agreed to be bound by the Court's Recommendation. A Court hearing was held on the 4th of July, 2000.

UNION'S ARGUMENTS:

3. 1. The worker concerned was not given adequate notice of the re-organisation meeting of the 25th of February, 1999, which lasted just five minutes. A worker with long and loyal service to the Company deserved to be treated better. He was, despite his work record and great loyalty to the Company, transferred to the post of Production Controller under protest. The manner of his transfer goes against all procedures and best practice in the Company.

2. The results of the transfer are that the worker has suffered a loss of status within the Company. He was previously a hands-on Production Supervisor with direct involvement with about 100 staff. His new role is quite different and is an office based job where he works alone mostly.

3. The worker has suffered a considerable loss of earnings (details supplied to the Court).

4. The worker is very concerned about his future status within the Company regarding promotion. He has sought some reassurance from the Company regarding future promotions and has asked that his seniority and experience within the Company be recognised. The request has met with a negative response from the Company.

5. There are now four other Supervisors in the Company whose service ranges from one to three years. In the event of future re-structuring, the claimant should maintain his seniority over these supervisors and should be included in future training programmes for Company Supervisors.

COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:

4. 1. The Company acknowledges the changes involved for the worker. However, at least four other managers faced similar levels of change, and had comparable levels of service in their previous positions as the claimant had in his. None of these other managers who were affected by the transfer (and who in some cases absorbed additional responsibilities) received any increase in salary.

2. On the issue of seniority, the Company wishes to restate that the Company recognises and indeed appreciates, the full twenty years service that the worker has accrued, fifteen of which have been in the Supervisory Grade. In the event of any future reorganisation, the worker's service in total and his supervisory experience/service would be acknowledged; all other things being equal, his supervisory service could determine his retaining employment.

3. While the worker may be unhappy with the lack of consultation involved in the reorganisation implemented last year, the Company would re-emphasise that he was treated in the same way as the other long service managers who were transferred in this reorganisation .The majority of the other managers transferred into new positions had comparable level of service to the worker, faced the same level of change and in many cases faced the requirement of accepting additional new responsibilities for no additional increase in their salaries.

4. With respect to the loss of earnings, while the Company is somewhat disappointed with an employee of long service and status taking such a claim, they acknowledge that in his new position his access to overtime has been reduced. However, it is difficult to foresee how new business may affect a need for overtime in his function.

Given this difficulty in calculating actual loss, the Company is prepared to consider making a payment on account and then look at a balance payment in the future, when the size of the loss has been established.

5. While the Company acknowledge there was a provisional allowance made for personal training for the worker in the training budget last year, there was no formal commitment or guarantee given that he would be funded for that course. All training is dependent upon the circumstances facing the Company and the relevancy/value of the training to the Company.

Both of these factors affected the Company's decision not to approve the worker's funding for that particular training course. However, should any future course chosen, be of value and relevance to the Company, the Company will give very positive consideration to any request for future training.

RECOMMENDATION:

It is clear that the claimant, because of his track record and expectations was more affected than others involved in the Company restructuring.

While the Court is satisfied that these organisational changes were necessary it is not satisfied that they were handled in a manner that would be expected of a Company with a good track record in treating its employees properly. The Court notes the Company assurances that the post the claimant has been transferred into is a meaningful one and that the role is one that it will require in the future. The Court believes that this statement by the Company is as far as it can go in terms of reassuring the claimant for the future.



The Company has indicated that it is prepared to look at a loss of earnings claim for the claimant and the Court, taking into account all aspects of this particular case, recommends that the claimant be paid a lump sum of £10,000 in compensation for all loss of earnings.



Signed on behalf of the Labour Court



Finbarr Flood
25th July, 2000.______________________
TOD/BCChairman



NOTE

Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Tom O'Dea, Court Secretary.