Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD91620 Case Number: AD92118 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: DUBLIN CORPORATION - and - IMPACT |
Appeal by the Corporation against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation B.C. 319/91 concerning the manner of recruiting temporary voters registration inspectors.
Recommendation:
5. The Court has considered the submissions made by the parties.
The Court notes that there is no dispute between the parties as to
the re-employment/retention of any temporary inspector being
subject to giving satisfactory service. In these circumstances
the Court takes the view that the proposals made by the Union as
amended and endorsed by the Rights Commissioner do not in any way
impinge upon the Corporation's right to manage the operation. The
Court therefore upholds the Rights Commissioner's Recommendation.
The Court so decides.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr Brennan Mr Devine
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD91620 APPEAL DECISION NO. AD11892
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES: DUBLIN CORPORATION
and
IMPACT
SUBJECT:
1. Appeal by the Corporation against Rights Commissioner's
Recommendation B.C. 319/91 concerning the manner of recruiting
temporary voters registration inspectors.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Corporation employs approximately 75 temporary inspectors
each year to compile the voters registration lists. They commence
employment in early September, for a period of eight weeks and are
let go on a phased basis over the period November to March. The
inspectors are paid approximately £155 p.w. In September, 1990
the Corporation introduced a system of interviews for the
re-employment of inspectors. Previously long-serving staff were
invited to recommence work. At the commencement of recruiting in
1991 a long-serving worker was not appointed. The Union referred
the issue to a Rights Commissioner on the 30th August, 1991. The
Rights Commissioner recommended that the worker be allowed to
commence work the following Monday. The recommendation was
accepted by both parties. The Rights Commissioner conducted a
further investigation on the 6th September, 1991 into the process
by which temporary inspectors are engaged by the Corporation.
Subsequent to the hearing both parties submitted additional data,
the Union by letter dated 9th September and the Corporation by
letter dated 16th September, 1991. In his findings the Rights
Commissioner stated
"Having considered the points made by both parties
............ it is my conviction that the proposal made by
IMPACT on 9th September, 1991 (Appendix A) represents, with
one qualification and modification, a quite reasonable
approach. This qualification related to para 2 of the
IMPACT proposal where it stated that 8 months total service
should be regarded as the threshold. I propose that this
should be adjusted to read 12 months total service".
On the 23rd September, 1991 the Rights Commissioner issued his
recommendation as follows:-
"In the light of the above I recommend that the proposal put
forward by the Trade Union in its letter dated 9th September,
1991, with the qualification identified above should be
accepted by both parties".
On the 19th November, 1991 the Corporation appealed the
Recommendation to the Labour Court under Section 13(9) of the
Industrial Relations Act, 1969. The Court heard the appeal on the
16th December, 1991.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. At the Rights Commissioner's hearing on the 6th September,
1991 the Union submitted a list of arrangements covering
seasonal workers in other public service employments (details
supplied to the Court). In all cases preference was given to
employees who had previous satisfactory service. During the
Rights Commissioner's hearing the Corporation acknowledged
that former employees were treated differently in the
selection process as F.A.S. was instructed to shortlist such
applicants. This contradicted the premise advanced by the
Corporation that "as a public service employer it must treat
all prospective employees equally, irrespective of whether any
of them were employed in previous years".
2. With regard to the criteria for selecting workers who are
to be retained after the eight week period, the Union contends
that this has been used by Management as a disciplinary tool
against staff including Union activists. For example, in 1990
a worker (the principal Union representative) who had
accumulated six years service was let go after an eight-week
period. In previous years and subsequently in 1991 he was
retained after the eight-week period. In 1990 preference was
given to some staff who had no previous experience and
therefore had not been required to display an aptitude for the
office based duties which predominate after the eight-week
period.
3. Notwithstanding the fact that the Rights Commissioner's
Recommendation failed to meet the terms of the initial Union
claim, or the compromise position outlined in its letter of
9th September, 1991, the Union has accepted the recommendation.
CORPORATION'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Rights Commissioner's recommendation fails to accept
the Corporation's fundamental right as an employer to manage
its services. The recommendation departs significantly from
the principle that a Public Service employer should consider
equally all applicants for temporary employment and that
offers of employment should be made to the applicants who are
most suitable, irrespective of whether or not they were
employed previously. The Corporation must operate with the
utmost efficiency and effectiveness. This can only be assured
provided the most suitable candidates are employed.
2. The Rights Commissioner's recommendation does not take
account of the distinct nature of the internal work of
inspectors deployed on scrivening duties as against the
outdoor work of inspectors (details supplied to the Court).
The Rights Commissioner failed to recognise - (1) the long
established custom and practice of deploying the most suitable
temporary inspectors and not those with the longest service on
scrivening duties and - (2) that temporary employment beyond
the initial period of eight weeks is offered to the most
suitable inspectors. Acceptance of the Rights Commissioner's
recommendation would result in there being no incentive to
those employed to work to the best of their ability in the
knowledge that it would contribute to their prospects of
further employment.
3. A number of specific problems in relation to general
suitability (details supplied to the Court) have arisen with
some inspectors who were previously employed by the
Corporation. The Corporation contends that all candidates for
employment on each year's draft register should be
interviewed. Regard is had to those employees who have
previously been employed as inspectors in that they do not
have to undertake the preliminary interview conducted by
F.A.S.. Previous experience is taken into account at
interview stage. The Corporation is prepared to re-employ
inspectors who were employed prior to 1990, subject to
satisfactory service, for the purpose of outside inspections
but without any guarantee of employment on inside inspectors'
work.
DECISION:
5. The Court has considered the submissions made by the parties.
The Court notes that there is no dispute between the parties as to
the re-employment/retention of any temporary inspector being
subject to giving satisfactory service. In these circumstances
the Court takes the view that the proposals made by the Union as
amended and endorsed by the Rights Commissioner do not in any way
impinge upon the Corporation's right to manage the operation. The
Court therefore upholds the Rights Commissioner's Recommendation.
The Court so decides.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
_____________________
10th January, 1992. Deputy Chairman
T.O'D./J.C.
APPENDIX A
9th September, 1991
Mr. Robert Clarke,
Right Commissioner,
Industrial Relations Commission,
Tom Johnson House,
Dublin 4.
Dear Mr. Clarke,
I refer to the IMPACT/Dublin Corporation dispute regarding
Inspectors (Scriveners) in the Voters Registration Department.
I wish to outline the Union position as follows:
1. The Union considers the initial appointment should be by
interview.
2. The Union agrees that there should be reinterviews for
subsequent appointments until eight months total service is
achieved. (The Union considers that eight months is a
reasonable compromise as it provides for a minimum of two
interviews i.e. interview and seven months service in year one
and a further interview in year two. In practice the eight
months threshold would require more than two interviews).
3. Subsequently, staff would be reengaged without interview
subject to satisfactory service.
4. Staff who break their service by not taking up an offer of
employment would be obliged to be reinterviewed.
5. Work before being laid off after the period of eight weeks to
be offered on seniority. (It should be noted that this
additional period is longer than the initial eight week
contract and the seniority criteria would enable staff to make
a reasonable projection of their period of employment).
6. If questions arise regarding satisfactory service the
appropriate grievance/disciplinary and third party appeal
procedures should apply.
The Union does not consider the Dublin Corporation suggestion of
exempting pre 1990 staff from the interview process, to be a
satisfactory solution. This would recreate the current problem in
future years. The Union considers its current proposals to be a
reasonable compromise which would give security on an ongoing
basis to long serving Inspectors.
Yours sincerely,
Shay Cody
Assistant General Secretary
___________________________
SC/NS