Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD89533 Case Number: AD8966 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: DUBLIN COUNTY COUNCIL - and - DUBLIN COUNTY COUNCIL GROUP OF UNIONS |
Appeal al by the Council against Rights Commissioner's recommendation No. S.T. 257/89 concerning the filling of a vacancy for water inspector.
Recommendation:
The Court having considered the written and oral submissions
of the parties does not find any substantive grounds for a
altering the Rights' Commissioner's recommendation. The Court
accordingly upholds the recommendation and rejects the appeal.
Division: MrMcGrath Mr Brennan Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD89533 RECOMMENDATION NO. AD6689
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 13(9)
PARTIES: DUBLIN COUNTY COUNCIL
and
DUBLIN COUNTY COUNCIL GROUP OF UNIONS
SUBJECT:
1. Appeal al by the Council against Rights Commissioner's
recommendation No. S.T. 257/89 concerning the filling of a
vacancy for water inspector.
BACKGROUND:
2. A vacancy for a water inspector arose due to the promotion of
one of the nine water inspectors in the Deansrath depot to
supervising inspector. The County Council contends that only
eight water inspectors are needed for the Deansrath area and that
this vacancy would not ordinarily be filled. However the Council
had made a commitment to a particular worker (who had suffered
demotion from pipe inspect or to depot assistant because of the
lack of suitable work for him) that he would be considered for
any vacancy which arose in keeping with his experience. The
Council contends the the worker concerned was suitable for
redeployment as a water inspector and he was appointed to the job
because of the commitment made by the Council to him. The Unions
claim that it had an agreement with the Council that two water
inspector vacancies would be filled through redeployment and the
at subsequent vacancies such as this one in Deansrath would be
advertised. The matter was referred to a Rights Commissioner who
investigated the dispute on 3rd July, 1989 and issued the
following recommendation on 21st July, 1989:-Recommendation
"The Council is in a difficult position. It has a
commitment to the Pipe Inspector and his Union, it also has
a conflicting commitment to the Union Group it seems. The
position has been promised. This has been confirmed to the
holder's Union. In these circumstances it is difficult to
render equity. However agreements are there to be observed
in good faith and I must uphold this principle. The
agreement/understanding with the Group of Unions predates
the actions of the Council in regard to the Pipe Inspector
and his Union. In these circumstances since the Unions
were not informed of the change, or given a chance to
negotiate on it, I must uphold their rights under the
original agreement. Furthermore it is not clear whether
the Pipe Inspector's Union was informed that there was
another arrangement covering the job at Deansrath. I
therefore recommend that the position is advertised with a
view to filling it in the normal way."
The County Council, on 31st July, 1989, appealed this
recommendation to the Labour Court under Section 13(9) of the
Industrial Relations Act, 19 69. The Court heard the appeal on
25th August, 1989.
UNIONS' ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Unions believe that all jobs in the Council that
have a status of promotion for members should be advertised
fairly within the Council (details supplied to the Court).
There is a lack of job opportunity at the moment and every
promotion is jealously guarded.
2. There was already an agreement reached with the Unions
on redeployment of people into these positions and in fact
the Council used up their two positions of redeployment. It
was never agreed that a third man would be deployed.
Therefore, again, it now behoves the Council to advertise
this particular job.
3. In the interest of good industrial relations within
Council, I believe that the Council should not be let away
with this position that they are trying to create by
arbitrarily moving members into positions as they so
desire, without any regard to procedures whatsoever.
COUNCIL'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The worker concerned is available and suitable for
redeployment as water in inspector. The Council's position
is that it accepts the worker should be assigned to a job
in keeping with his experience as soon as possible. But
for the commitment made to the worker and his union there
would be no need to fill the vacancy (details supplied to
the Court).
2. The worker concerned had been employed as a pipe
inspector but due to a fall off in work had been appointed
at a lower level of depot assistant pending the occurrence
of a vacancy in keeping with his experience. The Council
is committed to advertising vacancies which require to be
filled.
3. In arriving at his recommendation the Rights
Commissioner has come to the wrong conclusion. Vacancies
have been filled in the agreed manner. Furthermore, a
subsequent vacancy for drainage inspector in the North
County was filled following advertisement.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court having considered the written and oral submissions
of the parties does not find any substantive grounds for a
altering the Rights' Commissioner's recommendation. The Court
accordingly upholds the recommendation and rejects the appeal.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Tom McGrath
_________________________
11th September, 1989. Deputy Chairman
A.M./J.C.