Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD92626 Case Number: LCR13859 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: BORD NA GAEILGE - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
A dispute concerning the re-instatement of a worker to his former position.
Recommendation:
The Court has fully considered the oral and written submissions of
the parties.
Recognising that the Bord must operate within the constraints
placed upon it, the Court considers that the Bord have not acted
unreasonably in the manner in which they have treated the
claimant. Accordingly, the Court does not find grounds to concede
the claim of the complainant. The Court notes the assurances
which have been given to the complainant and would expect these to
be implemented in the event of a suitable vacancy becoming
available. The Court also notes that, in recent times,
relationships have improved and would call on the parties to
develop these further.
The Court so recommends.
Division: MrMcGrath Mr Brennan Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD92626 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13859
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1) INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES: BORD NA GAEILGE
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATION OF IRISH EMPLOYERS)
AND
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. A dispute concerning the re-instatement of a worker to his
former position.
BACKGROUND:
2. 1. Bord na Gaeilge is a non-profit-making organisation,
established by statute to extend the use of Irish as a spoken
language and, generally, as a means of public communication.
It employs 26 staff at civil service grades and salaries, 6
of whom are at managerial level.
2. The worker was employed by the Board in 1982 and up
until 1988 he was employed as Divisional Manager (Assistant
Principal Level) of the Education Division. In August, 1988
he was granted a career break to take effect from 1st
September, 1988. The terms of the career break provided for
a break of one year with the option to extend for further
periods, up to a maximum of five years in total.
3. In April, 1989 the worker requested clarification from
the Board on a number of points including his return from
the career break. He was informed that should he return he
would have to await a vacancy at managerial level, sanctioned
by the Department of Finance.
The worker applied for a return to the Board because of
extenuating personal circumstances. The Board sought and was
granted permission to appoint the worker as senior executive
(Higher Executive Officer) pending a vacancy at Manager of
Division (Assistant Principal) level. His appointment was
from the 1st August, 1989.
4. On the 7th September, 1989, the worker applied to the
Board for payment of managerial salary on a personal basis
from the 1st September, 1989 but this was refused.
5. A conciliation conference took place on the 31st March,
1992 but agreement could not be reached. The issue was
referred to the Labour Court on the 12th October, 1992 and
the Court investigated the matter on the 5th November, 1992.
UNIONS'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The worker was badly treated by the Board in the
following respects
- Failure of the Board to honour their offer of the
position of Board Secretary.
- The worker's unwarranted reference for psychiatric
examination.
- The Board's undermining of the work carried out by
the worker on the Donaghmede project.
- Withdrawal of the worker from the County Westmeath
V.E.C. project.
- He was transferred to work to the Manager,
Community Division, who did not inform the Chief
Executive Officer of the work the claimant was
doing on the advertising of the project.
2. The worker is now paid a rate equivalent to that of a
Divisional Manager in the Board. He should, therefore, enjoy
the same conditions as other managers:-
- A budget to operate his division
- Be allowed attend meetings of the management group
- Be given a number of other facilities available to
managers e.g. a credit card for expenses.
3. There is no cost to the Board in conceding this claim.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The worker was offered a post as Secretary in Institiuid
Teangealaiochta Eireann at the maximum of the Manager salary
scale. He refused this because he preferred his arrangement
with the Board.
2. From 1st September, 1990 the worker has been paid at the
appropriate maximum point on the Manager/Assistant Principal
scale.
3. The worker was aware of the terms of his career break,
specifically the criteria relating to his return.
4. The Board acted exceptionally favourably towards the
worker because of the personal circumstances in which he
found himself. It had no obligation to re-employ him in
August, 1989.
5. There is no appropriate vacancy within the Board for the
worker.
6. No change in the current complement of Divisional
Managers can be authorised without Ministerial approval.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has fully considered the oral and written submissions of
the parties.
Recognising that the Bord must operate within the constraints
placed upon it, the Court considers that the Bord have not acted
unreasonably in the manner in which they have treated the
claimant. Accordingly, the Court does not find grounds to concede
the claim of the complainant. The Court notes the assurances
which have been given to the complainant and would expect these to
be implemented in the event of a suitable vacancy becoming
available. The Court also notes that, in recent times,
relationships have improved and would call on the parties to
develop these further.
The Court so recommends.
~
Signed on behalf of the Court
30th November, 1992 Tom McGrath
P.O.C./M.H. _____________________________
Deputy Chairman
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Paul O'Connor, Court Secretary.