Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD9238 Case Number: AD92130 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: IRISH GLASS BOTTLE COMPANY - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Appeal by the Union against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation No. CW 408/91 concerning the seniority of a worker.
Recommendation:
Having considered the submissions from the parties the Court
is of the view that the Rights Commissioner's recommendation
was fair and reasonable in the circumstances and should be
upheld.
The Court accordingly rejects the appeal and so decides.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Keogh Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD9238 APPEAL DECISION AD13092
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES: IRISH GLASS BOTTLE COMPANY
and
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Appeal by the Union against Rights Commissioner's
Recommendation No. CW 408/91 concerning the seniority of a
worker.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company introduced a rationalisation programme in
1983 and created the position of unit mechanic. A number of
operators applied for the available posts and those who were
not successful were utilized as "spares" from then on. In
1984 the Company drew up a list as follows:-
Unit Mechanics (Spare)
Shift A Shift B
Worker A Worker C
Worker B Worker D
Shift C Shift D
Worker E Worker G
Worker F Worker H
In addition a number of other workers who were not on the list
were used as spares. In 1990 a vacancy occurred for a
permanent unit mechanic on "A" shift. Following local level
discussions the Company produced the following seniority list
on 11th June, 1991:-
1) Worker I
2) Worker G
3) Worker J
4) Worker K
5) Worker L
6) Worker M
7) Worker A
8) Worker N
9) Worker O
The Company decided that worker I should take up the position
of unit mechanic on "A" shift. The Union claims that
according to the 1984 list worker A should have been
appointed. The dispute was referred to a Rights Commissioner
who investigated it on 8th November, 1991 and issued the
following recommendation on 11th December, 1991:-
"I recommend that the Union accepts the Company position
that worker A'S place on the spares list is as per their
letter of the 11th June".
(The worker was named in the Recommendation).
The Union appealed against the Recommendation under Section
13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. The Court heard
the appeal on 5th February, 1992.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The 1984 list is the only evidence available
regarding the seniority of spare unit mechanics. When a
vacancy for a permanent position occurred the most senior
man according to the 1984 list should have been
appointed. This is worker G. He waived his rights to
the appointment for personal reasons. The next senior
worker on the list is Worker A and the permanent position
should be offered to him.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The 1984 list is not a seniority list but simply a
reference list for the four shifts. It listed the two
senior spares on each of the shifts at that particular
point in time. When the vacancy for a permanent position
arose the Company had to produce a list of those in
contention on the basis of overall seniority. Worker I
is the worker with overall seniority and he was appointed
to the position.
DECISION:
Having considered the submissions from the parties the Court
is of the view that the Rights Commissioner's recommendation
was fair and reasonable in the circumstances and should be
upheld.
The Court accordingly rejects the appeal and so decides.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Evelyn Owens
________________________
18th February, 1992
A.S./N.Ni.M. Deputy Chairman