Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD87505 Case Number: LCR11390 Section / Act: S67 Parties: Trinity College Dublin - and - FWUI |
Non-appointment of one of two applicants to a position of Senior Security Officer.
Recommendation:
8. The Court is satisfied that, apart from the oversight in not
advertising the position in Dartry, the procedures were properly
followed and does not therefore recommend concession of the claim.
The Court however recommends that the position be re-advertised in
all locations and if no suitable candidate is found the position
may then be advertised externally in accordance with agreed
procedures.
Division: CHAIRMAN Mr McHenry Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD87505 THE LABOUR COURT LCR11390
CC87884 INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR11390
Parties: TRINITY COLLEGE DUBLIN
and
FEDERATED WORKERS' UNION OF IRELAND
Subject:
1. Non-appointment of one of two applicants to a position of
Senior Security Officer.
Background:
2. The College currently employs thirty five security workers,
thirty one of whom are located in the main College campus and four
at the student residences in Dartry. All work on a shift basis.
The College normally employs four Senior Security Officers. The
rates of pay of the workers are as follows:-
Security officer: #151.41 per week (plus shift and
allowance)
Senior Security Officer: #151.41 per week and a
differential of #15.14 (plus
shift and allowance)
3. When a vacancy arose for a post of Senior Security Officer, it
was advertised internally in accordance with agreed procedures
(see Appendix 1). Two Security Officers applied for the post and
were interviewed by a Nominating Committee (details supplied to
the Court) on 12 May, 1987. Both applicants were considered
unsuitable for the post and were informed by letter of 18th May,
1987 that their applications were unsuccessful. Both workers were
also subsequently advised of the reasons for not obtaining the
post.
4. A local level meeting was held on 26th may, 1987 and the Union
maintained that one of the workers should be appointed to the
post, as both were suitable for the position and had carried out
the duties involved on a relief basis for three and seven years
respectively. The College maintained that neither worker was
suitable for the post and that the duties of the position
advertised were significantly different to the duties involved on
a relief basis.
5. On 27th May, 1987 the matter was referred to the conciliation
service of the Labour Court. A conciliation conference was held
on 18th June, 1987 at which no agreement could be reached and on
23rd June, 1987 the matter was referred to the Labour Court for
investigation and recommendation. The Court heard the dispute on
20th August, 1987 - the earliest date suitable to both parties.
Union's arguments:
6. (i) One of the workers has performed the duties of relief
Supervisor for approximately seven years and is still
performing those duties, while the other worker has
been carrying them out for approximately three years.
During this period neither worker has been informed by
the College that they have been performing their duties
unsatisfactorily.
(ii) Both workers are suitable for the post and are familiar
with the position advertised. Other security workers
would have applied for the position but did not do so
as they were of the opinion that one of the two workers
concerned would certainly obtain the post due to their
suitability.
(iii) Both workers are more than competent for the post which
should be offered to one of them. A probationary
period of six months would be acceptable in order to
ensure that the work is being carried out
satisfactorily, which is sure to be the case.
College's arguments:
7. (a) The College has complied with all aspects of the
recruitment agreement. Due to an oversight the
position was not advertised in one location and the
College is prepared to re-advertise the post internally
again and in the event of there being no suitable
applicants then advertising externally (as per agreed
procedures).
(b) The post advertised is significantly different with
regard to the level of responsibility involved (details
supplied to the Court), to that involved in relief
duties. The College made its decision based both on
the work performance and performance at interview of
the two workers involved and the Nominating Committee
unanimously decided that neither was suitable for the
post.
(c) The College has the right to make appointments within
the procedures laid down by the Board of the College
and agreements in existence with the Unions and
Associations.
RECOMMENDATION:
8. The Court is satisfied that, apart from the oversight in not
advertising the position in Dartry, the procedures were properly
followed and does not therefore recommend concession of the claim.
The Court however recommends that the position be re-advertised in
all locations and if no suitable candidate is found the position
may then be advertised externally in accordance with agreed
procedures.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John M. Horgan
-------------------
3rd September, 1987
U.M./U.S. Chairman.
APPENDIX I
Agreement between College and
Union concerning recruitment and promotions
- It is College policy to promote from within in the case
of promotional vacancies of interest to weekly-paid
staff insofar as this is practical.
- All such vacancies will be advertised internally.
- The criteria for appointment in promotional posts will
obviously vary with the particular post in question.
All other things being equal, seniority will be a major
factor in these appointments.
- In the event of there being no suitable internal
applicants, the post will be advertised externally.