Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD87728 Case Number: AD8791 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: ROCHES STORES - and - MS. A. COOKE |
Appeal, by the worker, against a Rights Commissioner's Recommendation concerning the allocation of a full-time position within the Company.
Recommendation:
6. Having carefully considered the submissions made by the
parties the Court is of the opinion that the Rights Commissioner's
recommendation was correct and should not therefore be altered.
The Court so decides.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr Collins Mr Devine
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD87728 APPEAL DECISON NO. AD9187
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 13(9)
Parties: ROCHES STORES
and
A WORKER
SUBJECT:
1. Appeal, by the worker, against a Rights Commissioner's
Recommendation concerning the allocation of a full-time position
within the Company.
BACKGROUND:
2. The appeal concerns a worker who has been employed by the
Company since November, 1984 as a permanent part-time coffee bar
assistant. She had been previously employed by the Company from
1969 to 1973 in a full-time capacity. The worker who has failed
in her efforts to become a full-time employee claims that she has
been unfairly treated in relation to same. The Company rejected
the claim.
3. No agreement was reached through local negotiations and the
worker referred the matter to a Rights Commissioner who having
investigated the dispute, issued his recommendation on 29th
January, 1987 as follows:
"I recommend that the Company notes the worker's wish to
attain a full-time position and considers her as an
applicant whenever future vacancies occur. Should she be
unsuccessful I recommend that the Company give her reasons".
(The worker was named in the Rights Commissioner's
Recommendation).
On 25th March, 1987 the worker appealed the recommendation to the
Labour Court in accordance with Section 13(9) of the Industrial
Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing arranged for 21st
May, 1987 was cancelled when both parties stated that they
accepted the Recommendation. On 17th September, 1987 the worker
appealed the Rights Commissioners Recommendation to the Labour
Court in accordance with Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations
Act, 1969. The Labour Court heard the appeal on 29th October,
1987.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Rights Commissioner's Recommendation does not resolve
the problem faced by the worker and six full-time positions
have been filled since it was issued. On each occasion the
worker had to ask the Company for reasons why she was
overlooked for a full-time permanent position. The reasons
given varied from "unsuitable" to "attitude problem". These
are not accepted as good and proper or valid and sustainable
reasons.
2. The Company has a bias against the appointment to
full-time employment of married women in its coffee bar. It
is also pursuing a policy of discrimination against married
women in general and against the worker in particular in a
most vindictive manner (details supplied to the Court).
3. The Company requested the worker to assist in setting up
the new coffee bar when it was being opened. The worker
co-operated with the Company at that time and this belies the
Company's assertion that the worker had "attitude problems".
Indeed the worker has always co-operated with, and has shown
great commitment to the Company.
4. The worker has always expressed her interest in a
full-time permanent position and has applied for every
permanent full-time vacancy since her re-employment by the
Company in November, 1984.
5. The worker has never been faulted on conduct or
competence by the Company and is being victimised for
exercising her rights under the Industrial Relations Act,
1969.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
5. 1. The Company policy on recruitment is that it reserves the
right to advertise vacancies internally and externally if
necessary, for any position in any category of employment in
the Company. Internal applicants for any position must have
the same rights to be considered and selected if he or she is
the most suitable applicant by the Company.
2. The worker's claim would impose restrictions both on
applicants and the Company. This is not acceptable.
3. The Company is satisfied that its stated policy on
recruitment is implemented in all cases and rejects any
suggestion that it is discriminating against the worker.
Experience in the catering trade is not needed for a position
in the coffee bar.
DECISION:
6. Having carefully considered the submissions made by the
parties the Court is of the opinion that the Rights Commissioner's
recommendation was correct and should not therefore be altered.
The Court so decides.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
______________________
Deputy Chairman
16th November, 1987
T.O'M/J.C.