Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

A Worker

An Electrics Manufacturing Company

Act

Complaint/Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969

CA-00014889-001

09/10/2017

The Complainant applied for a promotion and did not receive it. She was not told, which she was later told at a grievance meeting, that she was unlikely to have ever got the promotion because the Respondent could not replace her in the position that she currently holds; which is a split shift role and one that is pivotal to the manufacturing process. Therefore, she now finds herself in a cul-de-sac position from which she would like to be promoted, however she is unlikely to be moved until a replacement for her current post can be found.

1.       The Complainant has worked for the Respondent since 1999. Her current position is a Stores operator. This is a split shift role.

2.       In May 2017 a stand-in Team Leader in the Winding Area of the plant was advertised internally. The position was a promotion and it was a stand in team leader, to cover on an ad hoc basis times when the Team Leaders were on holidays or on leave.

3.       The Complainant applied for the promotion and was interviewed for the post.

4.       After the interview she was hopeful that she would get the post, as she was told that she had performed well at interview and she later found out that she was the only applicant for the job.

5.       However, she did not get the promotion.

6.       When she asked for the reason she was told that there was difficulty back filling the role that she held currently.

7.       She was also told that as the promoted position was in a different section (Winding Area) and was ad hoc (a stand in team lead and not a permanent position) the promotion was better suited to someone who was already based in the Winding Area, so that he or she would be aware of any changes that might develop in the Winding Area over time.

8.       The Complainant issued a grievance complaint that she should have been told when she applied for the promotion that she could not hope to get it.

9.       The outcome of the grievance was that it was at the Respondent’ discretion how the labour of the workforce was to be allocated and that they had dealt with the Complainant fairly.

10.   The basis of the complaint is:

(a)    she should have been informed that she was not likely to get the promotion before she went to the trouble of applying for it and preparing for the interview,

(b)    she felt that having been told that she had done a good interview that she was led to believe that she would get the promotion,

(c)     she was not given proper feedback and

(d)    the Respondent has not properly considered how her current role might be backfilled to prevent her being cornered into a position from which she cannot be promoted.

1.       The Respondent accepts that the Complainant has a long service work record and has a good work record.

2.       It is the sole discretion of the Respondent to allocate its employees in positions that they require in order to meet the demands of the business. The discretion of whether to promote or not lies with the Operations Manager and the Management/Union agreement states that “Recruitment and Promotion is the sole prerogative of the Company”

3.       The reason that the Complainant did not get the promotion was as was explained to her namely that her role could not be easily backfilled and her role was pivotal. A number of manufacturing lines depended on the Complainant in her current position, it would be too disruptive to take her out of that position until a replacement could be found. Furthermore, the Respondent needed someone who would be based in the Winding Area not any other area and the stand in team lead would only be required on an ad hoc basis.

4.       The other difficulty with back filling her role was that it was a split shift role and therefore her split shift hours could not be transferred to the Team Lead position, which followed a standard shift pattern.

5.       The Respondent would never dissuade an employee from applying for a promotion. The interview and promotion process is a useful experience for any employee to undergo. Therefore they do not accept that they should have dissuaded her from applying for the post

6.       To allow the complaint to be upheld would undermine the need the any business has, namely to be allocate its workforce within the plant on a business need basis. This discretion must be solely that of the Respondents.

1.       The Complainant is a long service employee with a very good work record

2.       She is someone who has demonstrated a desire to be promoted and to increase her commitment to the business of the Respondent

3.       Transparent dealing in the employer employee relationship is best practice so therefore it would have been better if it had been explained to the Complainant that while her ability was not in dispute she couldn’t expect to be promoted to this position. It was not.

4.       This complaint under the Industrial Relations Acts is not seeking to give the Complainant the promotion but rather to acknowledge that the communication between the parties was less than optimal.

5.       No business can function properly or develop if its discretion to place or to promote its workforce is other than at its own discretion and in accordance with the requirements of the business. It is accepted that there cannot be an entitlement to be a promotion unless there is a breach of a practice, an agreement or statutory provision in doing so, which does not arise here.

6.       However, this complaint is not whether the Complainant should have been promoted or not. Rather was the way in which the Respondent dealt with the Complainant and their failure to advise her that she was not nor could she be in consideration for the post.

7.       I find that the complaint is well founded in that it is likely that the Respondent did not properly consider the application of the promotion until after the interview was completed and when it was discovered there was only one applicant for the post; whose role could not easily be back-filled. I find that the Respondent should have considered her application once she applied and met with her and discussed with her the problems with her achieving this particular promotion, but encourage her to apply again and discuss promotional opportunities for her that might arise in the future.

8.       I find that the Respondent’s communication with the Employer was less than ideal and given that they wish to encourage ambition with their work force that they did not give her the respect that her application deserved. As someone that had worked for nearly 20 years without much promotion, it was brave of her to seek promotion and that should have been acknowledged.

9.       In this respect find the complaint to be well founded and I recommend that the Respondent provide assurance to the Complainant in a practical way that her promotional aspirations will be encouraged by the Respondent in the future.

10.   I recommend that discussions take place between the parties to allow her to see how she might be transferred out of the position that she currently holds in order that a promotion will not be denied to her again on this basis.

11.   I recommend that the Respondent pay to the Complainant an award of €250.00 in compensation