Labour Court Database
__________________________________________________________________________________
File Number: CD87574
Case Number: LCR11438
Section / Act: S67
Parties: EASON & SON LTD - and - ITGWU
|
Subject:
Dispute concerning the application of a worker's seniority in job placement.
Recommendation:
5. The Court is satisfied that there is no agreement binding the
Company to promote employees solely on the basis of seniority and
the terms of LCR No. 11039 dealt with a specific case and proposed
the agreement of general principles.
The Court does not therefore consider that the Company were in
breach of any agreement or acted unreasonably and accordingly does
not recommend concession of the claim.
On a general basis the Court is of the view that the parties here
concerned should negotiate an appropriate agreement based on the
terms outlined in letter dated 20th May, 1987 addressed to the
Union.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Heffernan Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD87574 THE LABOUR COURT LCR11438
CC87288 INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR11438
Parties: EASON & SON LIMITED
and
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
Subject:
1. Dispute concerning the application of a worker's seniority in
job placement.
Background:
2. The Company which is in the wholesaling and retailing of
newspapers, magazines, books, stationery and greeting cards
business operates 3 main divisions, wholesale news, wholesale
books and retail shops employing 380 workers in these areas. In
November, 1986, the Company advertised a position for
telephonist/receptionist in the wholesale news and book
departments. This non-promotional position was advertised
internally and twelve applications were received. All applicants
were interviewed and graded. The worker concerned was graded
fourth and was not offered the position. The worker who was
graded first and offered the job had less service than the worker
concerned. The Union considered that the grading of the worker
concerned was contrary to longstanding Company practice of
seniority/service in job placement and contrary to an agreement
concluded in May, 1986 in respect of a similar dispute.
Discussions took place at local level. As no progress was
possible the matter was referred to the conciliation service of
the Labour Court on 12th February, 1987. A conciliation
conference was held on 5th June, 1987. As no agreement was
possible both parties agreed to a referral to the Labour Court for
investigation and recommendation. A Court hearing was held on
10th September, 1987.
Union's arguments:
3. (a) Initially when the matter was brought up, the Company
refused to attend a conciliation conference as a
similar dispute was before the Court and the Company
wanted to see the outcome before dealing with this
dispute. The resulting Labour Court Recommendation No.
LCR11039 provided inter alia for the resolution of the
specific dispute at local level without prejudice to
past or future procedures. In May, 1986 agreement was
reached whereby the worker in question was appointed to
the position in dispute, on seniority, and for a trial
period of 3 months. The worker has since been
permanently appointed to that position. The Union are
seeking to have the same facility applied to the worker
here concerned as both disputes are of a similar nature
and therefore, the same solution should also apply.
(b) The established Company procedure in the past has been
to apply the principle of seniority in job placement
particularly for movement within grades, as is the case
in this dispute.
(c) The worker concerned has been employed by the Company
for 18 years in a variety of positions. The post of
telephonist/receptionist would be graded the same as
news invoicing clerk, the position currently held by
the worker. The move in question is a sideways' move
within her grade, she would receive no extra money (in
fact she would be on less money as she would lose her
computer allowance), she has carried out this function
on an 'ad hoc' basis over the years and was found
satisfactory.
(d) None of the other unsuccessful applicants have
contested, and to the best of the Union's knowledge, do
they wish to contest the vacancy.
Company's arguments:
4. (i) All applicants were interviewed and each person was
graded as to their ability to satisfy the requirements
necessary for the job. Grading took into account in
the case of existing staff their work experience and
performance within the Company.
(ii) A worker's length of service is a deciding factory only
where the top applicants have equal ability.
(iii) The Company must have the right to choose the most
suitable candidate for this position. Management must
also be seen to be carrying out meaningful interviews
and giving equality of treatment to all applicants in
arriving at a final decision.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court is satisfied that there is no agreement binding the
Company to promote employees solely on the basis of seniority and
the terms of LCR No. 11039 dealt with a specific case and proposed
the agreement of general principles.
The Court does not therefore consider that the Company were in
breach of any agreement or acted unreasonably and accordingly does
not recommend concession of the claim.
On a general basis the Court is of the view that the parties here
concerned should negotiate an appropriate agreement based on the
terms outlined in letter dated 20th May, 1987 addressed to the
Union.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Evelyn Owens
________________________
Deputy Chairman.
28th September, 1987.
M.D./J.C.