Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD87406 Case Number: AD8756 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: WELLMAN INTERNATIONAL LTD - and - ITGWU |
Appeal, by the Union on behalf of a worker, against Rights Commissioner's recommendation No. CM/17,505, concerning compensation for alleged discrimination.
Recommendation:
7. In the light of the submissions made by the parties, the Court
considers that the appellant should be awarded #200 compensation
in settlement of his claim.
The Court so decides.
Division: Mr Fitzgerald Mr Heffernan Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD87406 THE LABOUR COURT AD5687
Section 13(9) INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
APPEAL DECISION NO. 56 OF 1987
PARTIES: WELLMAN INTERNATIONAL LIMITED
(Represented by the Federated Union of Employers)
and
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
Subject:
1. Appeal, by the Union on behalf of a worker, against Rights
Commissioner's recommendation No. CM/17,505, concerning
compensation for alleged discrimination.
Background:
2. In early 1983, the worker concerned applied for the position
of first aider, which was vacant on his shift. At the time it
carried an annual payment of #100, which has since been increased
to #200. He received no response from the Company until 1986,
during which time the position was left vacant. The Company
advertised the position in 1986 and identified a list of
applicants. A draw for the job was conducted, but the worker
concerned was not successful.
3. The Union contended that the worker was discriminated against
since the normal selection procedure for filling such positions is
that the first person to apply gets the job, subject to him
proving suitable when trained. The Union believes the Company
should have appointed the worker to the position he had applied
for three years earlier rather than create a precedent by
conducting a draw. The Union felt the worker was discriminated
against because he is an active member of the Union Works
Committee and has been victimised for his activities in that role.
The Company denied that there was any discrimination. They had
adequate first aid cover on the particular shift and they were
also having great difficulty organising a first aid course. The
Company maintained that when the annual payment was increased to
#200 there was more interest and competition. As a result they
felt the fairest method of selection was a draw in which everyone
would have a fair chance.
4. The Union referred the matter to a Rights Commissioner for
investigation and recommendation. On 31st March, 1987, the Rights
Commissioner issued the following recommendation:
"The first aider vacancy was properly filled but there was
undoubted frustration for the worker concerned as he had
applied for it so long before and was getting no explanation
for the delay or why he was not being appointed.
Consequently he deserves some satisfaction so I recommend a
sum of #150".
(The worker was mentioned by name in the recommendation).
The Union rejected the Rights Commissioner's recommendation and on
13th May, 1987, appealed it to the Labour Court, under Section
13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Court hearing took
place on 23rd June, 1987, in Navan.
Union's arguments:
5. (a) One of the reasons the Company has advanced for not
appointing the worker concerned is that there was a
first aider on the shift in the form of the shift
assistant manager. However, the fact is that this
person was in the same position while an 'ordinary'
worker held the first aid job on the same shift.
There was nothing new in the arrangement when the
worker applied for the job in 1983. If he had been
appointed then, it would have simply maintained the
existing level of cover.
(b) The argument that training was unavailable is not
valid because there was no formalised training
available, or considered necessary, prior to 1985.
When the Union first made representations about this
matter in early 1986, neither of these arguments was
advanced as a reason for withholding the job from the
worker.
Company's arguments:
6. (i) During the period 1984-1985 the Company had difficulty
in organising a suitable first aid course for the
employees. It was only in mid-1986 that it was able
to organise a course.
(ii) As a consequence of the increased annual payment,
there was greater interest and competition for first
aid posts throughout the plant. Indeed, there were a
number of applications for the post on the worker's
own shift. Due to this greater competition the
Company made the selection by the fairest method
possible. The draw was carried out by employee and
management representatives.
DECISION:
7. In the light of the submissions made by the parties, the Court
considers that the appellant should be awarded #200 compensation
in settlement of his claim.
The Court so decides.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
9th July, 1987 Nicholas Fitzgerald
B.O'N./P.W. Deputy Chairman