Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD86902 Case Number: LCR11061 Section / Act: S67 Parties: AER LINGUS - and - ITGWU |
Termination of the employment of a worker.
Recommendation:
6. The Court, having regard to the fact that the worker was
employed on a strictly temporary basis, does not consider that the
Company acted unreasonably or unfairly in relation to his
employment and does not therefore recommend concession of the
Union's claim.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John M Horgan
13th March, 1987 ----------------
P.F./U.S. Chairman
Division: CHAIRMAN Mr Heffernan Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD86902 THE LABOUR COURT LCR11061
CC86176 INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR11061
Parties: AER LINGUS
and
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS UNION
Subject:
1. Termination of the employment of a worker.
Background:
2. The worker concerned in this dispute applied for a permanent
position as an operative at Dublin Airport in December, 1985. On
10th March, 1986, the Personnel Department advised the worker that
he had been considered unsuitable for permanent employment and
invited him to apply for a temporary position. The worker duly
applied for the temporary position was interviewed on 26th March,
1986 and offered a temporary position for one season only on 9th
June, 1986. The worker accepted a temporary position, was placed
in the post section, and his employment was terminated on 31st
October, 1986. The Union, on behalf of the worker made
representations to the Company and requested that he be retained
in employment. The Union also maintained that since the post he
was placed in was a permanent one he should be confirmed in that
post. The Company stated that it was unable to do this as:-
(i) Personnel considered the worker unsuitable for
permanent employment.
(ii) There was an already established list of people
suitable for permanent positions as and when they
arose.
Agreement could not be reached at local level, and on 3rd
November, 1986, the matter was referred to the conciliation
service of the Labour Court. Agreement was not reached, and on
18th November, 1986, the matter was referred to the Labour Court
for investigation and recommendation. A Court hearing took place
on 15 December, 1986.
Union's arguments:
3. (i) There were no grounds for complaint against the worker
during the period of his employment and all concerned
with him found him to be a good and dilligent worker.
(ii) The position held by the worker was a permanent
position in the post section. The post section is not
a seasonal/term employment area.
(iii) The dual employment lists have only come to light
during the negotiations on the matter here concerned
and were immediately objected to when discovered.
(iv) The concept of the dual employment list is not
acceptable to the Union, as there are no provisions for
same in either the Operative Grades' Agreement, or any
subsequent agreement. The dual employment panel is in
conflict with the custom and practise in employment of
staff for Aer Lingus.
(v) Other employees who received similar letters to the one
given to this worker (there are three in this
situation) were appointed by the Company without
dispute.
(x) It appears to the Union that the only objection to the
worker is the fact that he was previously unemployed.
He applied for a permanent position and, without
interivew, was deemed unsuitable.
Company's arguments:
5. (a) The reason the worker's appointment to the post section
in a temporary capacity occurred was because a proposed
reorganisation of the area was expected to produce one
staff member less. For administrative reasons this
reorganisation did not take place, and a member of the
permenent panel was appointed to fill the position on
24th November, 1986.
(b) From an administrative point of view advertising in the
national press causes an enormous strain on the
Company's personnel department e.g. over 2,000 people
responded to our advertisement for permanent operatives
in 1986. Of this number, the company interviewed 500
and selected 28. This demonstrates the seriousness of
the selection procedure and underlines the Company's
commitment to select the most suitable candidates for
present and future needs. It also illustrates the
competitive nature of the selection procedure.
(c) It is quite natural with such a large group that the
number of suitable applicants would outnumber the
number of jobs. The Company placed 40 people on a
permanent panel advising them that if and when a
permanent position arose one of them would be offered
that position.
(d) This year 320 temporary staff were employed between
Dublin, Shannon and Cork and with one or two
exceptions, where temporary employment had been
extended for specific purposes, all these staff had
their employment terminated at the end of the summer
period in accordance with their contracts.
RECOMMENDATION:
6. The Court, having regard to the fact that the worker was
employed on a strictly temporary basis, does not consider that the
Company acted unreasonably or unfairly in relation to his
employment and does not therefore recommend concession of the
Union's claim.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John M Horgan
13th March, 1987 ----------------
P.F./U.S. Chairman