AD92217

Subject:
Appeal by the worker against Rights Commissioner's recommendation No. B.C. 471/91 concerning the alleged unfair treatment of the worker.

Recommendation:
5. Having considered the submissions from the parties the Court
finds no basis for altering the Rights Commissioner's
recommendation.

The Court accordingly upholds the Recommendation, and rejects the
appeal.

The Court so decides.

Division: Ms Owens Mr Keogh Mr Walsh

Text of Document__________________________________________________________________

CD92329 APPEAL DECISION NO. AD21792

INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969


PARTIES: TELECOM EIREANN

and

A WORKER
(REPRESENTED BY J.J. KENNEDY & CO. SOLICITORS)


SUBJECT:
1. Appeal by the worker against Rights Commissioner's
recommendation No. B.C. 471/91 concerning the alleged unfair
treatment of the worker.

BACKGROUND:
2. The worker commenced employment with the then Department of
Posts and Telegraph (now Telecom Eireann) in 1960 as a junior
labourer and was more recently engaged on civil works duties and
other installation work. In April, 1990 he took early retirement.
He claims that he was disadvantaged in relation to a pension
allocated to him following the termination of his employment with
Telecom Eireann, in that he contends:

(i) That a more attractive separation package was negotiated
with Telecom Eireann subsequent to his retirement.

(ii) That he should have been re-graded to a higher grade of
work for sometime prior to his retirement which would
have ensured a more attractive separation package.

The dispute was investigated by a Rights Commissioner on the 25th
of February, 1992. The Rights Commissioner recommended that:

"... it would be unsafe to recommend that Telecom Eireann
should make any adjustment to the separation package
applicable to the worker, and accepted by him".

The appeal against the Rights Commissioner's recommendation was
heard by the Labour Court at Roscrea on the 21st of October, 1992,
the (earliest date that was convenient to both parties).



WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. During his employment with the Company the worker was
promoted to various panels from which he would substitute for
other employees who might be unavailable for work. His
placement on a panel constituted promotion in that there was
an increase in wages paid to him. The panels in question were
the Fitting panel, the Stores Post panel and the Foreman's
panel.

2. During the course of his employment with the Company for
the period of 10-15 years, the worker engaged in electrical
installation duties, for which he was not upgraded in his
position.

3. For the period 1987-1988, the worker engaged in water-pipe
repairs, termed 'plumbing duties' for the Company. This work
was outside the normal course of duties of the worker, and he
was entitled to be promoted to the rank appropriate to those
'plumbing duties'.

4. Other grades recently took action against the Company in
relation to their being 'disadvantaged' in relation to their
pension. The issues were resolved in favour of the employees.

THE COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The worker availed of an Early Retirement scheme in April,
1990. There have been two Early Retirement schemes since
then, the terms of which were identical to the schemes availed
of by the worker.

2. On the 24th March, 1992 the Employment Appeals Tribunal
heard a claim made by the worker against Telecom Eireann under
the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977 and 1991. The claim was
dismissed by the Tribunal.

3. In 1985, in a referral under Section 20(1) of the
Industrial Relations Act, 1969, the worker submitted to the
Labour Court that he should have been appointed to the panel
for Electric Light and Power Technician Class II. The Labour
Court rejected the claim.

4. Following a further application the worker was interviewed
for the Electric Light and Power panel in February, 1988. The
Interview Board did not consider the worker suitable to be
placed on the panel, a decision that was based on performance
at the interview and an assessment by his line manager.



DECISION:
5. Having considered the submissions from the parties the Court
finds no basis for altering the Rights Commissioner's
recommendation.

The Court accordingly upholds the Recommendation, and rejects the
appeal.

The Court so decides.
~

Signed on behalf of the Labour Court


Evelyn Owens
___________________
4th November, 1992. Deputy Chairman
M.K./J.C.