Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD89696 Case Number: LCR12791 Section / Act: S20(1) Parties: IARNROD EIREANN - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Dispute concerning the filling of a singnalperson's vacancy in Colbert Station, Limerick.
Recommendation:
5. The Court, having considered the submissions of the parties
does not concede the claim of the Union.
The Court can fully understand the sense of grievance of the
applicant concerned in this case given the manner in which the
generality of vacancies were filled in similar grades in the past.
The Court considers that to ensure that problems of this nature
are eliminated, the Company should regularise their procedures
regarding the filling of vacancies and communicate their
arrangements to the workers and their representatives.
The Court so recommends.
Division: MrMcGrath Mr Keogh Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD89696 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12791
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT 1969
SECTION 20(1)
PARTIES: IARNROD EIREANN
AND
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning the filling of a singnalperson's vacancy in
Colbert Station, Limerick.
BACKGROUND:
2. In May, 1988, a vacancy arose for the position of
signalperson, category 2 at Limerick Station. The Company
advertised the vacancy and three applicants were interviewed for
the post on the 12th July. The successful applicant was appointed
to the position with effect from the 3rd October, 1988. The Union
on behalf of the claimant, is disputing this appointment on the
basis that the successful applicant had little or no
service/experience (the claimant was the most senior of the three
applicants) and because his application was not submitted until
three weeks after the deadline for applying had passed. The
Company rejected the Union's argument and declined to have the
matter dealt with by either a Rights Commissioner or at a
conciliation conference of the Labour Court. The Union
subsequently referred the matter to the Labour Court under Section
20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969, agreeing to be bound
by the Court's recommendation. The Court investigated the dispute
in Limerick on the 30th January, 1990.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The worker concerned applied for the position of
signalperson at Limerick Station and at closing date there
were only two applications received by the Company. However,
the Company subsequently accepted an application from another
member of staff over three weeks later.
3. 2. The claimant joined the Company's service in 1950 and has
worked to the Company's satisfaction in every grade in the
Traffic Section since then (details of claimant's service and
work experience supplied to the Court).
3. There is a long-established custom and practice on the
railways regarding appointments to positions such as signalmen
and guards and this practice has been in operation since the
commencement of the railways. The custom and practice has
been that where there are a number of applicants of the same
grade, the most senior in service is entitled to the position.
This principle has been accepted by both the Company and the
unions and has served the parties well in the past.
4. It is difficult to understand why the Company should
renege on this practice in this case in order to give the
position of signalperson to a young man with a couple of
years' service and no experience whatsoever in railway working
and the operation of trains.
5. The claimant has been treated in a very unjust manner by
the Company. As he was the only graded applicant for the
position at closing date for receipt of applications and also
in view of his service and qualifications, he should have been
appointed to the position.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company did not agree to have the matter referred to a
third party on the basis that it is the Company's perogative
to make appointments having regard to its statutory
responsibility for the safe and efficient operation of the
railways and that this responsibility cannot be abrogated or
delegated. Also, it is Company policy not to enter into
discussion on the merits of particular applicants for
vacancies.
2. The Company rejects the Union's argument regarding
seniority. Suitability is the determining factor in making
promotional appointments within the Company. Where candidates
are considered to be equally suitable, regard is had to
seniority. However, the suitability element is the
predominant one.
3. The point has been made that the successful candidate was
a late applicant. However, it is the established practice in
such cases to consider all applications received prior to the
date of the interviews. The person appointed to the position
was interviewed on the same day as the other applicants and he
was, and is, considered to be the most suitable applicant.