Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD88321 Case Number: AD8831 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: DUBLIN PORT & DOCKS BOARD - and - DUBLIN PORT & DOCKS BOARD;UNION OF CONSTRUCTION, ALLIED TRADES AND TECHNICIANS |
Appeal by the Union against a Rights Commissioner's Recommendation concerning the right of one carpenter to "step-up" to a higher position.
Recommendation:
5. The Court, having considered the submissions from the parties,
does not find grounds for altering the Rights Commissioner's
recommendation.
The Court accordingly upholds the recommendation and rejects the
appeal.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Shiel Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD88321 APPEAL DECISION NO. AD3188
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 13(9)
PARTIES: DUBLIN PORT & DOCKS BOARD
AND
UNION OF CONSTRUCTION, ALLIED TRADES AND TECHNICIANS
SUBJECT:
1. Appeal by the Union against a Rights Commissioner's
Recommendation concerning the right of one carpenter to "step-up"
to a higher position.
BACKGROUND:
2. The carpenter concerned commenced employment with the Board in
March, 1965. In keeping with the practice in the employment, he
regularly "stepped-up" to act as supervisor in the supervisors
absence, since 1979. In 1982, the Board decided that another
carpenter should also "step-up". The Union objected to this
decision and following meetings with management a proposal emerged
in March, 1986, whereby each man would "step-up" in turn for the
summer and that a decision would then be made as to who should
step-up permanently. Th proposal was not fully effected since the
engineer in charge had since retired. The matter was referred to
a Rights Commissioner for investigation and recommendation. A
Rights Commissioner investigated the dispute on 16th February,
1988 and on 24th February, 1988, recommended as follows:-
" In the circumstances of the Board's failure to carry
through the exercise proposed in March, 1986, and
seemingly accepted by the Union at that time, I
recommend that the duties concerned be shared equally
between the two qualifying men, or any others who may
also be qualified and who would wish to be
considered. This arrangement should last up to the
appointment of a rated chargehand in 1990. In this
exercise the claimant must be afforded every
co-operation by line management in order that the
basis of comparison is fair, when the appointment is
being made in 1990. "
The Union rejected the Rights Commissioner's Recommendation and on
the 26th April, 1988 appealed against it, under Section 13(9) of
the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. The Court heard the appeal on
the 27th May, 1988.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The worker concerned performed the "stepping-up" since
1979 and on no occasion during his period of "stepping-up" was
there any complaint against this worker's compentency or from
the workers he was supervising. He performed his duties as a
temporary chargehand carpenter in a conscientious manner and
with complete integrity.
2. The worker "stepped-up" for a number of years and had an
expectation that this arrangement would continue. The Union
does not understand why, after this period, the Board should
decide that the arrangement should be shared. Before the
worker applied to "step-up" there was no mention of sharing
the position. The proposal to share constitutes a change in
custom and practice.
BOARD'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. During the Rights Commissioner's hearing the worker
submitted a document outlining certain events which he alleges
took place during his service with the Board (copy supplied to
the Court). These have been investigated by the Senior
Engineer and his findings are contained in a memorandum to the
Chief Engineer (copy supplied to the Court). The Board denies
the inference that these incidents are now being used to
deprive this worker of his "right" to "step-up".
2. The Board has never accepted that seniority alone should
be the basis for promotion. The use of "step-up" positions is
designed to test the competence of individuals in a
supervisory role. This is best achieved by rotating various
individuals in acting positions.
3. The Board has been anxious at all times to give the
appellant and other employees a fair opportunity of displaying
their competence and suitability for promotion to a
supervisory position. In the final analysis the question of
promotion is a matter for the Board's Management who will have
regard to all the factors including seniority in coming to a
decision.
4. The Board believes that the Rights Commissioner's
Recommendation provides the fairest basis for assessing the
qualities of the various candidates for promotion.
DECISION:
5. The Court, having considered the submissions from the parties,
does not find grounds for altering the Rights Commissioner's
recommendation.
The Court accordingly upholds the recommendation and rejects the
appeal.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court.
Evelyn Owens
_______________________
20th June, 1988.
A.K./M.F. Deputy Chairman.