Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD89666 Case Number: AD8987 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: ACCO (IRELAND) LIMITED - and - IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION |
Appeal by the Company against Rights Commissioner's recommendation No. S.T. 247/89 concerning the appointment of a materials handler.
Recommendation:
9. The Rights Commissioner's recommendation was based primarily
on the assertion that the Company appointed a man who had not got
the fundamental training for the job - fork-lift driving. This
has been proven to be incorrect and the extent of the fork-lift
driving which the Rights Commissioner understood to be involved in
the job has also been seriously challenged by the Company. The
new evidence presented at the hearing changes significantly the
case presented to the Rights Commissioner and the Court considers
that the Company appeal should be upheld and the man appointed
should be confirmed in the position.
The Court so decides.
Division: CHAIRMAN Mr McHenry Mr Devine
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD89666 APPEAL DECISION NO. AD8789
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 13(9)
PARTIES: ACCO (IRELAND) LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATION OF IRISH EMPLOYERS)
and
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Appeal by the Company against Rights Commissioner's
recommendation No. S.T. 247/89 concerning the appointment of a
materials handler.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company, is situated in the Clonshaugh Industrial Estate,
Dublin and is part of a major multi-national which manufactures
office requisites. It employs approximately 160 people.
3. In April, 1989 the Company advertised internally a position as
materials handler in the Bindery Department. The job required
detailed recording and use of an MRP System and some forklift
truck driving. The Union objected to the job advertisement on the
basis that the Company was changing the job without negotiation.
4. Following negotiations a different notice was put on the
notice board advertising a standard material handlers job without
any additional duties. However the Company insisted that the use
of the MRP System would be a future requirement of the job.
5. Seven people applied and a person was appointed to the
position advertised. The Union on behalf of one of the applicants
objected to the appointment mainly on the basis that the person
appointed had not got forklift driving experience. The matter was
referred to a Rights Commissioner for investigation and
recommendation. Following an investigation held on 1st September,
1989 the Rights Commissioner issued the following recommendation
dated 7th September, 1989:
"The Company's action in promoting a man to a post which
included 70% to 80% of forklift driving without completion of
a course, is clearly against its stated policy in the Group's
magazine.
In these circumstances and the fact that the "real post" was
not advertised, I recommend that this post is now advertised.
The claimant should be allowed the opportunity to get some
experience of the new post and the holder should also get the
opportunity to receive a training course in forklift driving.
The Company should then make its choice. I further recommend
that in future the "real post" should be advertised and the
conditions in relation to pay etc. should be negotiated in
tandem."
6. The Company appealed the recommendation to the Labour Court
under Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. The
Court heard the appeal on the 1st November, 1989.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
7. 1. The Union prevented the Company from advertising the
modified version of the job which contained a detailed
reporting system in addition to forklift truck driving.
Forklift truck driving was not an essential feature of the
job. The Company based its case on these points at the Rights
Commissioners investigation. However it has since come to
light that the person appointed is an experienced fork lift
truck driver having driven one before in his previous
employment (details supplied to the Court).
2. The Company in its view appointed the most suitable person
to the position. This is in keeping with the Company/Union
Comprehensive Agreement which acknowledges that the Company
has sole discretion in matters of recruitment and promotion.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
8. 1. The person appointed has not got the necessary fork lift
truck driving experience. In allowing this worker to drive
forklift trucks the Company is in breach of its own stated
policy as outlined in the Company magazine which stated that
only those workers who had completed AnCO/F.A.S. courses would
be allowed to drive the forklifts.
2. The claimant has a certificate which proves he has
satisfactorily completed a forklift driving course. He also
has experience in operating as a materials handler as well as
doing paper work similar to that required in the advertised
post.
3. The Union believes that the Rights Commissioner's
recommendation is fair and reasonable under the circumstances
and that if given the opportunity the claimant will be able to
show that he is as capable of doing the work as efficiently as
any of the other applicants.
DECISION:
9. The Rights Commissioner's recommendation was based primarily
on the assertion that the Company appointed a man who had not got
the fundamental training for the job - fork-lift driving. This
has been proven to be incorrect and the extent of the fork-lift
driving which the Rights Commissioner understood to be involved in
the job has also been seriously challenged by the Company. The
new evidence presented at the hearing changes significantly the
case presented to the Rights Commissioner and the Court considers
that the Company appeal should be upheld and the man appointed
should be confirmed in the position.
The Court so decides.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Heffernan
_________________________
11th December, 1989. Chairman
M.D./J.C.