Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD86583 Case Number: LCR10784 Section / Act: S67 Parties: TELECOM EIREANN - and - P.O.O.A. |
Claim that a statement, made in a submission to the Labour Court on 9th September, 1985, was damaging to a worker and should be withdrawn or substantiated.
Recommendation:
6. On the basis of the evidence presented the Court does not
recommend concession of the Association's claim.
Division: Mr Fitzgerald Mr Heffernan Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD86583 THE LABOUR COURT LCR10784
SECTION 20(1) INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
RECOMMENDATION NO. 10784
PARTIES: TELECOM EIREANN
and
POST OFFICE OFFICIALS ASSOCIATION
Subject:
1. Claim that a statement, made in a submission to the Labour
Court on 9th September, 1985, was damaging to a worker and should
be withdrawn or substantiated.
Background:
2. On 9th September, 1985, a Labour Court hearing was held under
Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act 1969 concerning
claims by the Association for:-
(a) promotion to night telephone supervisor and
(b) position of a worker on the night supervisor grade II
list.
The Court did not recommend concession of the Union's claim
(Recommendation No. 10009 refers). In accordance with Section
20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969 that Recommendation
was binding on the Association.
3. The Association now claims that a statement in the Company's
submission for the Court hearing on 9th September, 1985, was
damaging to the worker involved. The statement was to the effect
that the worker was considered unsuitable for promotion at a
certain time. The Association sought to have discussions on the
matter. As the Company does not recognise the Association it was
not willing to have any discussions with the Association. On 22nd
July, 1986, the Association referred the matter to the Labour
Court for investigation under Section 20(1) of the Industrial
Relations Act, 1969. The Association agreed to be bound by the
Court's recommendation. A Labour Court hearing was held on 24th
September, 1986.
Association's arguments:
4. (i) The Company failed to give any reason as to why the
worker concerned was considered unsuitable. The
worker is concerned as to the likely effects of the
statement on his official position as the statement
was contained in public records and the matter has
been mentioned to the worker by people from both
inside and outside the Company.
(ii) The worker cannot understand why he was not suitable
for promotion. His records were clean and his
assessments continually good. The worker has suffered
embarrassment over the past six years as well as
financial loss and loss of seniority for annual leave
and other matters.
(iii) The Association is convinced that no good reason
existed for making the statement in the first place.
The Company should now either withdraw or substantiate
its statement.
Company's arguments:
5. (a) The Association is not recognised as representing any
grades within the Company. The Postal and
Telecommunications Workers' Union and the
Communication Managers' Union hold rights of
recognition for the grades of Telephonist (Day and
Night) and Telephone Supervisors (Day and Night)
respectively. The Company attended the hearing
without prejudice to its position on the
non-recognition of the Association. In addition there
are established industrial relations procedures in the
Company, principally the Transitional Scheme of
Conciliation and Arbitration for the Irish
Telecommunications Board.
(b) The statement by the Company at the hearing on 9th
September, 1985 contained a factual account of the
worker's career in order to show that he had been
correctly placed on the acting list for Night
Telephone Supervisor Grade II and consequently is
correctly placed for seniority purposes in relation to
his Night Telephone Supervisor Grade II colleagues.
(c) The statement by the Company also pointed out that it
was not unusual for an officer to be assessed as
unsuitable on one particular occasion and to be
promoted at a later date, as happened to the worker.
It also emphasised that entry to the acting list is
not a guarantee of promotion, but an opportunity for
an officer to be assessed for suitability for
promotion.
RECOMMENDATION:
6. On the basis of the evidence presented the Court does not
recommend concession of the Association's claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
5th November, 1986 Nicholas Fitzgerald
T.O'M./P.W. Deputy Chairman