Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD92723 Case Number: AD931 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: BLOOD TRANSFUSION SERVICE BOARD - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Appeal against Rights Commissioner's recommendation No. C.W. 303/92 concerning the non-selection of a worker for an alternative job.
Recommendation:
I recommend that the Board offers as a goodwill gesture and
the worker accepts a week's wages in settlement of this
dispute".
The Union appealed against the recommendation on the 1st of
December, 1992. The Labour Court heard the appeal on the 21st
December, 1992.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The worker who was appointed to the permanent position had
been given greater opportunities to learn the broad range of
duties/skills required for that position. In particular, he
was given preferential treatment when "mobile duty" was being
allocated.
2. The successful candidate and another worker were retained
as temporary driver/clerks despite the fact that they were
employed by the Board at a later date than the appellant.
3. In view of the appellant's service to the Board and given
the excellent reference he received, the Board acted unfairly
in appointing the other worker to the permanent position.
BOARD'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Board has treated the worker in a fair and equitable
manner and has fulfilled all its obligations towards him.
2. The appointment was made by the Board on the
recommendation of the Interview Board, following the
application of normal selection procedures.
3. The Board is prepared to meet in full the Rights
Commissioner's recommendation and to make the worker an ex
gratia payment of 1 week's wages as a gesture of goodwill.
DECISION:
5. Having considered the submissions made by the parties at the
hearing, and noting in particular the Board's assurance that the
worker concerned has not in any way prejudiced his chances of
obtaining temporary employment in the future, the Court is of the
opinion that the Rights Commissioner's Recommendation should
stand. The Court so decides.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr McHenry Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD92723 APPEAL DECISION NO. AD193
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES: BLOOD TRANSFUSION SERVICE BOARD
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATION OF IRISH EMPLOYERS)
and
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION)
SUBJECT:
1. Appeal against Rights Commissioner's recommendation No. C.W.
303/92 concerning the non-selection of a worker for an alternative
job.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker was employed by the Board as a temporary
driver/clerk for a 13-week period from the 10th of September,
1990. His contract was extended on a number of occasions until
August, 1991, when it expired. In March, 1992, the Board required
a permanent driver/clerk. It advertised the position both
internally and externally. The worker was interviewed for the
position but was unsuccessful. The post was filled by a
driver/clerk who has been an employee of the Board since early
1991. The worker believes that he should have been appointed to
the permanent driver/clerk position. The Board refuted any
suggestion that the worker had been treated unfairly. A Rights
Commissioner investigated the dispute in October, 1992. His
findings and recommendation were as follows:
"FINDINGS
I can understand the dissatisfaction which the worker has
expressed regarding his non-appointment to a permanent
position. However I can find no indication that the Board
acted other than in a proper manner, given the need for an
open competitive selection process for permanent positions.
In such situations there is no guarantee or expectation that
temporary employees may be successful.
RECOMMENDATION
I recommend that the Board offers as a goodwill gesture and
the worker accepts a week's wages in settlement of this
dispute".
The Union appealed against the recommendation on the 1st of
December, 1992. The Labour Court heard the appeal on the 21st
December, 1992.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The worker who was appointed to the permanent position had
been given greater opportunities to learn the broad range of
duties/skills required for that position. In particular, he
was given preferential treatment when "mobile duty" was being
allocated.
2. The successful candidate and another worker were retained
as temporary driver/clerks despite the fact that they were
employed by the Board at a later date than the appellant.
3. In view of the appellant's service to the Board and given
the excellent reference he received, the Board acted unfairly
in appointing the other worker to the permanent position.
BOARD'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Board has treated the worker in a fair and equitable
manner and has fulfilled all its obligations towards him.
2. The appointment was made by the Board on the
recommendation of the Interview Board, following the
application of normal selection procedures.
3. The Board is prepared to meet in full the Rights
Commissioner's recommendation and to make the worker an ex
gratia payment of 1 week's wages as a gesture of goodwill.
DECISION:
5. Having considered the submissions made by the parties at the
hearing, and noting in particular the Board's assurance that the
worker concerned has not in any way prejudiced his chances of
obtaining temporary employment in the future, the Court is of the
opinion that the Rights Commissioner's Recommendation should
stand. The Court so decides.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
_____________________
11th January, 1993. Deputy Chairman
M.K./J.C.