Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD8954 Case Number: LCR12305 Section / Act: S20(1) Parties: TELECOM EIREANN - and - A WORKER |
Claim on behalf of one worker for promotion to the grade of Deputy Chief Stores Superintendent.
Recommendation:
7. Having carefully considered the submissions and also the
arguments made at the hearing, the Court is of the opinion that
the acting list related solely to promotion to the grade of
Superintendent and not to any higher grade. Since the claimant
was re-graded to Superintendent under the re-organisation scheme,
the list ceased to have relevance.
Accordingly, the Court recommends that the claimant should accept
the decision of the Board on his complaint.
Division: Mr Fitzgerald Mr Shiel Mr O'Murchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD8954 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12305
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 20(1)
PARTIES: TELECOM EIREANN
and
A WORKER
SUBJECT:
1. Claim on behalf of one worker for promotion to the grade of
Deputy Chief Stores Superintendent.
BACKGROUND:
2. The warehousing function of the Logistics Department of
the Company is responsible for the central storage and
country-wide distribution of mainly engineering stores. It
currently comprises 138 staff in the following grades:
Chief Stores Superintendent (2)
Deputy Chief Stores Superintendent (5)
Stores Superintendent (27)
Services Officer (103)
Trainee Stores Officer (1)
3. In 1987 a major restructuring of the warehousing function was
implemented. The terms of this restructuring were the subject of
an agreement at the main industrial relations forum operating in
the Company i.e. the Joint Conciliation Council of the
Transitional Scheme of Conciliation and Arbitration for the Irish
Telecommunications Board. Before this restructuring the grading
structure consisted of:
Chief Stores Superintendent
Deputy Chief Stores Superintendent
Superintendent
Stores Supervisor
Stores Officer 1
Stores Officer 2
Stores Officer 3
Trainee Stores Officer
4. The restructuring involved the abolition of the Stores
Supervisor grade and the regrading of staff in that grade to
Stores Superintendent, a grade which had been the promotional
outlet for Stores Supervisors. To facilitate this the duties of
the grade of Stores Superintendent were broadened to incorporate
those of the abolished grade. Prior to this Stores Supervisors
could apply for inclusion on an acting panel. Seniority on this
panel was determined by reference to the date of an officer's
admission to the panel and consideration for promotion was on the
basis of that seniority and suitability. In March, 1988, a
vacancy in the Deputy Chief Stores Superintendent grade arose.
The worker concerned wrote to the Company and informed it that he
understood that as he was the senior person on the acting list he
should be the first to be considered for the post. The Company
replied to the worker and stated that no formal acting list was in
operation and that in filling the post normal Company policy of
taking seniority and other criteria would apply. Subsequently
another worker in the Stores Superintendent grade was appointed to
the vacant Deputy Chief Stores Superintendent post. On 9th
January, 1989 the worker concerned here referred the matter to the
Labour court under Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act,
1969. The worker agreed to be bound by the recommendation of the
Court. The Court investigated the dispute on 16th February, 1989.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
5. 1. Prior to the restructuring, promotion to Superintendent
from Supervisor was made by selecting a person from an acting
list. In 1984 an acting list was issued (details supplied to
the Court) which did not contain the name of the worker
subsequently promoted to the post of Deputy Chief Stores
Superintendent as he did not wish to be considered for
promotion. In 1986 that worker requested inclusion in the
acting list and in accordance with agreed procedures (Rule
225) was placed at the bottom of the acting list. In the
meantime the first three workers on the list were promoted in
accordance with these rules and prior to the introduction of
the new grading structure the worker concerned was top of the
list and the worker subsequently promoted was fourth. As the
worker concerned was the senior person on the acting list he
should have been the first person to be considered for the
promotion.
2. On 1st January, 1983, an Act of Dail Eireann came into
operation resulting in the setting up of two companies, An
Post and Telecom Eireann. Section 42 of the Postal and
Telecommunications Act protects a staff member against the
worsening of his conditions, and requires agreement between a
union and the Company regarding any change in his pay and
conditions. The agreed report on the grade restructuring of
May, 1987 contained no reference to any change in the method
of selecting a person for promotion. This claim is further
supported by paragraphs 2(A) and 2(D).
5. 3. Prior to the restructuring the worker concerned was a
member of the Postal and Telecommunications Union (P.T.W.U.).
On being re-graded Superintendent the Board ceased deducting
the worker's Union subscription as the P.T.W.U. held no
recognition for the grade of Superintendent. Accordingly, the
worker joined the Communication Managers Union (C.M.U.), which
held recognition for the grade of Superintendent and the
Company deducted Union subscriptions. A case for Union
recognition was brought to the attention of the Irish Congress
of Trade Unions and the claim by the P.T.W.U. that the
Superintendent grade (formerly supervisors) were performing
the same work was supported by Congress. The Company accepted
this decision and on March 31, 1988 stopped deducting Union
subscriptions for the C.M.U. This action by the Company was
an endorsement that only the name of the grade had changed and
that conditions of employment remained the same.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
6. 1. Prior to the restructuring, Stores Supervisors could apply
for inclusion on an acting panel which essentially indicated
their interest in substituting on higher duties during
absences and ultimately in promotion to the next grade, i.e.
Stores Superintendent. Seniority on this panel was determined
by reference to the date of an officer's admission to the
panel and consideration for promotion in the normal course was
on the basis of that seniority and, of course, suitability.
The worker here concerned was the most senior on the panel
which existed immediately prior to the implementation of the
restructuring. However the grade of Stores Supervisor ceased
to exist and all those serving in that grade were regraded
Stores Superintendent. The grade of Stores Superintendent
remains a higher level grade than Stores Supervisor and
essentially therefore the progression constituted an
upgrading. This is borne out by the fact that the agreement
on restructuring specifies that assimilation to the Stores
Superintendent grade "will be as per the regulations governing
starting pay on promotion." The acting panel which related
exclusively to the aspirations of Stores Supervisors for
promotion to Stores Superintendent no longer had any relevance
and became defunct.
2. The acting panel played no part in the re-grading of the
Stores Supervisors to Stores Superintendent on implementation
of the restructuring as this was not a normal promotion on the
occurrence of a vacancy but a block regrading. Most of the
officers re-graded were not on the old acting panel. It was
therefore appropriate that the officers re-graded should
retain their relative seniority which they held in their
former grade. This is consistent with other restructurings
which have occurred in the Company over the years.
6. 3. Traditionally acting panels have not been a feature of
promotions from Stores Superintendent to Deputy Chief Stores
Superintendent. Seniority for this purpose has been absolute
seniority in the lower grade which is what applied in the
recent promotion. The officer promoted was deemed the most
suitable person for the job and he also was the most senior
Stores Superintendent at the time. The worker concerned who
was second senior then has become the most senior Stores
Superintendent following the promotion. The normal promotion
procedures were applied in this case. The worker's seniority
as a Stores Superintendent has been determined in accordance
with normal practice. In view of the circumstances outlined
above the Court is asked to reject the claim.
RECOMMENDATION:
7. Having carefully considered the submissions and also the
arguments made at the hearing, the Court is of the opinion that
the acting list related solely to promotion to the grade of
Superintendent and not to any higher grade. Since the claimant
was re-graded to Superintendent under the re-organisation scheme,
the list ceased to have relevance.
Accordingly, the Court recommends that the claimant should accept
the decision of the Board on his complaint.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Nicholas Fitzgerald
___6th___March,___1989. _______________________
U. M./T. McC. (J. C.) Deputy Chairman