Labour Court Database
__________________________________________________________________________________
File Number: CD93608
Case Number: LCR14316
Section / Act: S26(1)
Parties: ARTHUR GUINNESS SON & COMPANY DUBLIN LIMITED - and - THE GUINNESS SKILLED GROUP OF UNIONS;TEEU;AEU
|
Subject:
Dispute concerning the non-filling of a vacancy in the Packaging Department.
Recommendation:
Having considered the submissions made by both parties, and their
elaboration at the hearing, the Court is satisfied that the
agreement entered into in October, 1989 (to which the Unions
concerned in this case were part) is being adhered to by the
filling of five posts of Plant Assistants, within the flexibility
contained in the relevant paragraph.
Division: Ms Owens Mr McHenry Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD93608 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14316
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES:
ARTHUR GUINNESS SON & COMPANY DUBLIN LIMITED
AND
THE GUINNESS SKILLED GROUP OF UNIONS
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning the non-filling of a vacancy in the
Packaging Department.
BACKGROUND:
2. 1. In 1983, the Company revised its planning system at the
St. James's Gate site. Arising from this review, the parties
agreed on the appointment of Planners and Plant Assistants.
2. By Agreement, five Plant Assistants were appointed and
assigned to the following areas:
- Brewhouse
- Utilities
- Fermentation
- Central
- Packaging
3. In November, 1991, the Plant Assistant in the Packaging
area was promoted to another position. In February 1992, the
Company advertised and filled a newly-created Plant
Assistant position in the Distribution area.
4. The Union sought the filling of the Plant Assistant
vacancy in the Packaging Department on the basis that the
1983 Agreement allocated the Plant Assistant posts to certain
areas including the Packaging Department. The Company
rejected the Union's claim.
5. The claim was referred to the Labour Relations
Commission and a conciliation conference was held on 1st
September, 1993. No progress was made and on 27th October,
1983, the claim was referred to the Labour Court under
Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act 1990. A Labour
Court investigation took place on 16th December, 1993.
UNIONS' ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. Prior to conciliation, the Company's only argument was
that the previous Plant Assistant in the Packaging Department
was not allowed to carry out the full range of duties
expected of him. This is denied by the Union. At
conciliation, the Company's argument was that the Agreement
allowed for five Plant Assistant's to be assigned anywhere.
This is disputed by the Union.
2. The Plant Assistant post in Distribution is a new
position created for an entirely new set of circumstances. It
cannot be used as an argument for the disestablishment of the
post in Packaging. The 1983 Agreement was arrived at after
negotiations. Concessions were made by the Unions. In
recognition of these facts, the five posts were created in
specific areas. Any change in the Agreement must be
negotiated.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. It is clear to the Company that there is not enough work
in Packaging to justify the appointment of a Plant Assistant
(details supplied). The Company, mindful of the 1983
Agreement, did not move to disestablish the post. The
Company has an agreed position with the Unions on the number
of Plant Assistants.
2. As part of a conclusion to an Agreement within its
Distribution function, the Company appointed a Plant
Assistant. This has honoured the Company's Agreement with
the Unions and maintained the five Plant Assistant positions.
The Unions are seeking the appointment of a sixth Plant
Assistant. This cannot be justified on work requirements or
any other grounds. The Company allocated the fifth post to
an area of meaningful work.
RECOMMENDATION:
Having considered the submissions made by both parties, and their
elaboration at the hearing, the Court is satisfied that the
agreement entered into in October, 1989 (to which the Unions
concerned in this case were part) is being adhered to by the
filling of five posts of Plant Assistants, within the flexibility
contained in the relevant paragraph.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
22nd December, 1993 Evelyn Owens
J.F./M.M. _______________
Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should by addressed to
Mr. Jerome Forde, Court Secretary.