Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD86964 Case Number: LCR10951 Section / Act: S67 Parties: DUBLIN CORPORATION - and - OPATSI |
Claim on behalf of one plasterer for re-instatement as a temporary foreman.
Recommendation:
7. The Court, having considered the submissions made by the
parties, is of the view that the Corporation has acted in
accordance with the existing procedures governing temporary
appointments in this case. The Court recommends, however, that
when the present panel is exhausted the claimant should be
strongly considered for any suitable temporary foreman vacancy
arising in the period up to the establishment of a new panel.
Division: Mr Fitzgerald Mr Heffernan Mr Devine
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD86964 THE LABOUR COURT LCR10951
CC861741 INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
RECOMMENDATION NO. 10951
PARTIES: DUBLIN CORPORATION
and
OPERATIVE PLASTERERS AND ALLIED TRADES SOCIETY OF IRELAND
Subject:
1. Claim on behalf of one plasterer for re-instatement as a
temporary foreman.
Background:
2. Competitions are held by the Corporation approximately once
every two years to:-
(a) fill existing vacancies for permanent foremen in
the housing maintenance section and
(b) form a panel from which craftsmen are selected to
fill vacancies for temporary foremen and
chargehands arising within a period of two years
from the date of formation of the panel.
The names of the successful candidates are placed in order of
merit on the panel referred to at (b) above and vacancies for
foremen on the established staff are not filled from the panel.
Also those appointed to temporary positions from that panel must
re-apply to take part in the next competition if they wish to
remain in these positions.
3. The worker concerned was placed 6th on the panel for temporary
foremen and chargehands arising from a competition held by the
Corporation in 1983. He was assigned the duties of temporary
foreman on the 9th January, 1984. A further competition to fill
existing vacancies for foreman and to form a panel for temporary
foremen and chargehands was announced by the Corporation in
February, 1986. The worker was one of the applicants for this
competition but in the subsequent interview was found unsuitable
to fill one of the vacancies at either permanent or temporary
level. As a result he ceased acting as temporary foreman on 23rd
June, 1986, when he reverted to his position of plasterer.
4. The Union, on behalf of the worker, served a claim on the
Corporation for his re-instatement as a temporary foreman. The
Corporation rejected the claim and, as no agreement could be
reached at local level, the matter was referred, on 23rd October,
1986, to the conciliation service of the Labour Court. Following
a conciliation conference, which took place on 27th November,
1986, at which no further agreement was reached, the matter was
referred to the Labour Court for investigation and recommendation.
The Court investigated the dispute on 9th January, 1986.
Union's arguments:
5. (i) Vacancies for established foremen in the Corporation
arose between January, 1984, and December, 1985.
These vacancies were deliberately not filled by the
Corporation but were held over for the competition
announced in February, 1986. The Union considers that
these vacancies should have been filled from the 1983
panel and the worker concerned should have been
appointed to one of them.
(ii) The worker has a total of eleven years' service with
the Corporation. Throughout this period his work
performance was always considered satisfactory,
including the period he acted as foreman.
(iii) In the 1983 and 1986 circulars, advertising the
competitions for permanent and temporary vacancies, it
is stated that the panel from which temporary posts
would be filled would operate for a period of two
years. However, the worker was allowed to retain the
position of temporary foreman for a period of two and
a half years. Therefore, the Corporation's contention
that he was only appointed to this position for two
years is invalid.
(iv) The Union can not accept a situation whereby a worker
having failed to get a higher position for which he
had applied, is in fact demoted.
(v) The loss of his temporary foreman position has
resulted in a reduction in wages of #40 per week to
the worker. During the two and a half years when he
was a temporary foreman he adjusted his lifestyle
relative to the higher income.
(vi) The worker holds a number of certificates in relation
to his trade and since becoming employed by the
Corporation has sought and was granted special leave
abroad to broaden his knowledge of work in general and
to gain experience at managerial level (details
supplied to the Court).
(vii) The worker is prepared to adopt a reasonable approach
in this case and would accept re-appointment to the
position of temporary foreman when the existing panel
for temporary positions, established under the 1986
competition, is exhausted.
(viii) In all the circumstances of this case the Union's
claim should be conceded.
Corporation's arguments:
6. (a) The procedure in operation in the Corporation for the
filling of promotional posts is similar to that which
operates in the Public Service generally (details
supplied to the Court). The 1983 and 1986
competitions in question in which the worker took part
were held in accordance with this procedure.
(b) All competitions in the Corporation are independent of
each other and both circulars stated clearly that it
would be necessary for any persons who were temporary
foremen and chargehands at the time of the issue of
the circulars to make fresh application if they wished
to be considered for inclusion in the new panel.
(c) Each panel has only a life of two years or to a date
not later than the coming into force of the new panel.
(d) In accordance with practice throughout the Public
Service, the detailed findings of interview boards are
treated as confidential by the Corporation. It would
not be appropriate, therefore, to divulge the
assessments of individual candidates.
(e) The Corporation is satisfied that these competitions
were conducted strictly in accordance with normal
practice and full and impartial consideration was
given to the application of all candidates, including
that of the worker concerned.
(f) The Corporation cannot accept that any person
successful at one competition for temporary foreman
should continue as a temporary foreman if not
successful at a subsequent competition.
(g) Acceptance of the Union's claim would have
considerable repercussions throughout the Corporation,
would alter radically the basis of such competitions,
alter the established custom and practice and affect
the efficiency and effectiveness of supervision in the
housing maintenance section.
(h) In all the circumstances the Union's claim must be
rejected.
RECOMMENDATION:
7. The Court, having considered the submissions made by the
parties, is of the view that the Corporation has acted in
accordance with the existing procedures governing temporary
appointments in this case. The Court recommends, however, that
when the present panel is exhausted the claimant should be
strongly considered for any suitable temporary foreman vacancy
arising in the period up to the establishment of a new panel.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
29th January, 1987 Nicholas Fitzgerald
T.McC./P.W. Deputy Chairman