Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD87104 Case Number: LCR11198 Section / Act: S20(2) Parties: CORK CORPORATION - and - ITGWU |
Dispute concerning a worker's placing on the Corporation's baths relief panel.
Recommendation:
5. Having carefully considered the circumstances, of this case
the Court is of the opinion that having established the interview
board and accepting its recommendation the Corporation was acting
fairly and equitably.
The Court therefore does not recommend concession of the Union's
claim.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr Heffernan Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD87104 THE LABOUR COURT LCR11198
SECTION 20(1) INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR11198
Parties: CORK CORPORATION
and
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
Subject:
1. Dispute concerning a worker's placing on the Corporation's
baths relief panel.
Background:
2. The worker concerned has been employed by the Corporation for
the past six years as a relief baths attendant. By virtue of her
seniority she was placed 4th on a baths relief panel. There are 6
workers on the panel. Traditionally the work was allocated on a
seniority basis from this panel. In addition, vacancies for
permanent bath attendants were filled from the panel as they
arose. In 1985, because of a claim under the Employment Equality
Act, 1977, a comprehensive agreement dealing with the terms and
conditions of employment of all baths attendants was negotiated
between the Corporation and the Union. Part of the agreement also
dealt with recruitment. It was decided that an initial panel
would be formed from the relief staff for the filling of permanent
baths attendants vacancies in order to protect the accrued rights
of these workers. In March, 1986, an interview was held to fill a
vacancy for a permanent baths attendant and to set up a panel
among the relief staff from which any future vacancies would be
filled. All the relief staff applied and the worker concerned was
placed 6th on the panel. A dispute arose between the Union and
the Corporation as the worker concerned was placed 4th on the
basis of her seniority on the previous panel. The Union sought an
investigation by a Rights Commissioner. The Corporation declined
to attend the investigation. The Union then sought an
investigation and recommendation from the Labour Court under
Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969 and agreed to
be bound by the Court's recommendation. A Labour Court hearing
was held in Cork on 15th April, 1987.
Union's arguments:
3. (a) The worker's seniority had been recognised for 6 years
and strong representations had been made by the Union
in advance of the interviews to the effect that
seniority should prevail in the selection process. The
Corporation acknowledged this position but the
interview board did not give it the normal
consideration due, which was always given in the past.
(b) The worker concerned was under the impression that she
was being interviewed for a job as permanent baths
attendant only, and was unaware of the fact that a new
panel was being set up. It is unfair that a worker
applies for a job and then as a result finds her
conditions of employment worsened by being placed last
on the panel.
Corporation's arguments:
4. (i) The competition was held strictly in accordance with
the terms of the September, 1985 Agreement.
(ii) The worker concerned was treated exactly the same as
the other candidates. To allow her contention would
disregard the recommendation of the interview board and
would deny the other candidates their current
entitlements.
(iii) All the candidates were at the time of interview relief
attendants only. Thus the creation of the panel
assured them continuity of employment as relief
attendants together with the certainty of permanent
appointment once a vacancy arose.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. Having carefully considered the circumstances, of this case
the Court is of the opinion that having established the interview
board and accepting its recommendation the Corporation was acting
fairly and equitably.
The Court therefore does not recommend concession of the Union's
claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell.
________________________
Deputy Chairman.
29th June, 1987.
M.D./J.C.
CD87104 THE LABOUR COURT LCR11198
SECTION 20(1) INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR11198
Parties: CORK CORPORATION
and
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
Subject:
1. Dispute concerning a worker's placing on the Corporation's
baths relief panel.
Background:
2. The worker concerned has been employed by the Corporation for
the past six years as a relief baths attendant. By virtue of her
seniority she was placed 4th on a baths relief panel. There are 6
workers on the panel. Traditionally the work was allocated on a
seniority basis from this panel. In addition, vacancies for
permanent bath attendants were filled from the panel as they
arose. In 1985, because of a claim under the Employment Equality
Act, 1977, a comprehensive agreement dealing with the terms and
conditions of employment of all baths attendants was negotiated
between the Corporation and the Union. Part of the agreement also
dealt with recruitment. It was decided that an initial panel
would be formed from the relief staff for the filling of permanent
baths attendants vacancies in order to protect the accrued rights
of these workers. In March, 1986, an interview was held to fill a
vacancy for a permanent baths attendant and to set up a panel
among the relief staff from which any future vacancies would be
filled. All the relief staff applied and the worker concerned was
placed 6th on the panel. A dispute arose between the Union and
the Corporation as the worker concerned was placed 4th on the
basis of her seniority on the previous panel. The Union sought an
investigation by a Rights Commissioner. The Corporation declined
to attend the investigation. The Union then sought an
investigation and recommendation from the Labour Court under
Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969 and agreed to
be bound by the Court's recommendation. A Labour Court hearing
was held in Cork on 15th April, 1987.
Union's arguments:
3. (a) The worker's seniority had been recognised for 6 years
and strong representations had been made by the Union
in advance of the interviews to the effect that
seniority should prevail in the selection process. The
Corporation acknowledged this position but the
interview board did not give it the normal
consideration due, which was always given in the past.
(b) The worker concerned was under the impression that she
was being interviewed for a job as permanent baths
attendant only, and was unaware of the fact that a new
panel was being set up. It is unfair that a worker
applies for a job and then as a result finds her
conditions of employment worsened by being placed last
on the panel.
Corporation's arguments:
4. (i) The competition was held strictly in accordance with
the terms of the September, 1985 Agreement.
(ii) The worker concerned was treated exactly the same as
the other candidates. To allow her contention would
disregard the recommendation of the interview board and
would deny the other candidates their current
entitlements.
(iii) All the candidates were at the time of interview relief
attendants only. Thus the creation of the panel
assured them continuity of employment as relief
attendants together with the certainty of permanent
appointment once a vacancy arose.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. Having carefully considered the circumstances, of this case
the Court is of the opinion that having established the interview
board and accepting its recommendation the Corporation was acting
fairly and equitably.
The Court therefore does not recommend concession of the Union's
claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell.
________________________
Deputy Chairman.
29th June, 1987.
M.D./J.C.