FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : CONOCO PHILLIPS WHITEGATE REFINERY LIMITED - AND - TECHNICAL, ENGINEERING AND ELECTRICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Grier Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Alleged breach of Agreement.
BACKGROUND:
2. The dispute relates to the interpretation of a Company/Union agreement from May, 1986, regarding the filling of two front line supervisory positions. The agreement states
"As a general rule, it is the Company's intention that all first line supervisory positions would be filled from within the Company and to have suitable people available for these posts."The agreement had previously stated "...shouldbe filled..." but was changed to "...wouldbe filled..." at the request of the Union.
In 2005 a Contracts Manager was promoted to the position ofField Leader, Operations Department and his position was filled by an external candidate who was working on site (there were two internal and two external candidates). The Craft Group objected and wanted the Company to honour the agreement by promoting a certain worker (Worker A) but it eventually accepted the appointment. Shortly afterwards the Field Leader was promoted and his position was filled from the Procurement Department. The Union again objected as it believed that the agreement had been undermined a second time.
The case was referred to the Labour Relations Commission and a conciliation conference took place. As the parties did not reach agreement the dispute was referred to the Labour Court in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 6th June, 2008, in Cork.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The inclusion of the wordwouldclearly signals the intent of the 1986 agreement and how it should be interpreted and applied. The overlooking of Worker A for the post left vacant by the promotion of the Contracts Supervisor is a clear breach of Company/Union agreement of 1986.
2. Given the breach of the agreement and the denial of a promotion opportunity to Worker A he should be appointed to the position of Field Supervisor on a permanent position.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The 1986 agreement refers to"First Line Craft Supervision Replacement Company Position"and as such, the Field Leader, Operations Department position in dispute is clearly not covered by the agreement.
2. In both of the disputed cases the Company exercised its right to select the most suitable candidate and, therefore, make the best business solution in filling the Field Leader role.
3. The Company has always been pro-active in giving development opportunities to members of the maintenance team.
RECOMMENDATION:
It is noted that the agreement at issue was concluded in 1986. The relevant circumstances pertaining within the Company are now substantially different than they were then.
In the Court's view, the 1986 agreement cannot be readily or easily adapted to current circumstances. In these circumstances, the Court recommends that the parties should now re-negotiate the agreement of 1986, taking account of the original objective, but adapted to take account of modern circumstances.
The Court further recommends that the current position regarding the disputed posts be accepted.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
20th June 2008______________________
CO'N.Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Ciaran O'Neill, Court Secretary.