Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD93214 Case Number: LCR14155 Section / Act: S20(1) Parties: TELECOM EIREANN - and - A WORKER |
Company's alleged unfair treatment of the worker concerning his career advancement.
Recommendation:
4. The Court has considered the submission of the claimant, the
oral evidence presented at the hearing and the written submission
of the employer who did not attend the Court hearing. The Court
did not find grounds to justify the claimant's assertion that the
selection process for a promotional position was unfair to him and
that he should have been successful. In the circumstances the
Court does not recommend concession of his claim.
Division: Mr Heffernan Mr Brennan Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD93214 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14155
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES: TELECOM EIREANN
and
A WORKER
SUBJECT:
1. Company's alleged unfair treatment of the worker concerning
his career advancement.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker has been employed on overhead construction with the
Company for 20 years, eight of which were as a Gang Foreman. He
is presently employed as Technician Class 1 in the Dublin
district. The allegation of unfair treatment concerning his
career advancement relates to a Senior Technician Panel test
interview in December, 1990 and a subsequent appeal interview in
February, 1991. He was unsuccessful on both occasions. Prior to
interview an assessment form is completed in respect of each
candidate and is forwarded to the interview board.
The worker claims that he received a favourable assessment from
his Engineering Superintendent, who in turn forwarded the
assessment for countersigning to the worker's Engineer. The
Engineer changed one of the markings to a lower rating, as is his
prerogative, given a justifiable reason. The worker believes that
there was no good reason for the alteration to his assessment and
that it was changed for personal reasons. If any rating is below
5 the candidate could not pass the test irrespective of how well
he performed at interview.
The worker referred the dispute to the Rights Commissioner Service
for investigation by a Rights Commissioner. The Company was not
prepared to attend at a Rights Commissioner's investigation.
The worker referred the dispute to the Labour Court on the 30th of
March, 1993 in accordance with Section 20(1) of the Industrial
Relations Act, 1969.
The Company's position was that promotion to the grade of Senior
Technician is governed by procedures agreed originally at the
Department of Posts and Telegraphs' Departmental Council. These
procedures provide for an appeals mechanism and a counselling
service for unsuccessful candidates. As the worker had processed
his case through the agreed procedures, the Company considered
that it would be inappropriate to attend at the Court hearing. It
submitted a written submission to the Court setting out its
position concerning the dispute.
The Court investigated the dispute on the 16th of July, 1993 (the
earliest suitable date).
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The alteration to the rating on the assessment form was
made for no good reason. The only explanation is that the
engineer may have lowered the rating due to personal
differences as there were no prior complaints made by the
Company concerning the worker's performance. The low rating
on the assessment form meant that the worker could not be
successful in the test no matter how successful at interview.
2. The assertion that the worker did not reach the required
technical standard at interview is not reasonable. He was
asked few technical questions, all of which he answered
satisfactorily.
RECOMMENDATION:
4. The Court has considered the submission of the claimant, the
oral evidence presented at the hearing and the written submission
of the employer who did not attend the Court hearing. The Court
did not find grounds to justify the claimant's assertion that the
selection process for a promotional position was unfair to him and
that he should have been successful. In the circumstances the
Court does not recommend concession of his claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Heffernan
____________________
23rd July, 1993. Chairman.
M.K./J.C.
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Michael Keegan, Court Secretary.