Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD93534 Case Number: LCR14245 Section / Act: S20(1) Parties: AN POST - and - MR BRIAN ROONEY |
Dispute concerning employment with An Post.
Recommendation:
5. The Court has considered the submissions of the parties and
the oral evidence submitted at the hearing. It is clear to the
Court that this long drawn-out dispute arose and continued because
of serious communication inaccuracies on the part of An Post.
In the first instance, the claimant was offered in error a
full-time temporary position and had the offer withdrawn within a
very short space of time. The Court understands the deep felt
disappointment which this involved for the claimant who had been
seeking full-time employment over a long period.
The second inaccuracy related to correspondence from An Post to
public representatives relating to the claimant. An Post
incorrectly attributed the claimants absence from work in the days
preceding Christmas 1992 as being due to illness whereas the
claimant had clearly notified that it was due to a family crisis.
The claimant considered that, in context, "illness" could easily
be misinterpreted
In addition to and perhaps because of these happenings, the
claimant regarded the standard employment reference which he
received from An Post as totally inadequate.
Despite all the correspondence which has taken place between the
parties, the Court recommends that the dispute should be finalised
by
- a formal letter from An Post acknowledging again the
communication errors referred to above and apologising
for any resultant distress, embarrassment and
inconvenience caused to the claimant
- an appropriate work reference distinct from the standard
one.
The Court recommends that the claimant should accept this course
as finalising the dispute and that he desist from pursuing it any
further.
Division: Mr Heffernan Mr Keogh Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD93534 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14245
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES: AN POST
and
MR BRIAN ROONEY
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning employment with An Post.
BACKGROUND:
2. 1. The worker was employed on a casual basis as a postman
at Christmas for a number of years. In 1990, An Post
interviewed more than 500 applicants and placed them on a
panel. The worker was placed on the panel and in April, 1992,
was offered employment as a temporary postman. The worker
indicated that he was not available at that time but wished to
be considered for future work.
2. During September, 1992, an urgent need arose for
additional casual staff in the operational area. On 10th
September, 1992, the worker was contacted by telephone and
offered a temporary full-time position. Almost immediately it
was realised that an error was made and that only temporary
part-time work was available. The worker was contacted again
by telephone and the position was explained to him but he did
not take up the appointment.
3. The worker was invited to attend for an aptitude test in
late September, 1992 as part of the recruitment process for 72
full-time postmen. An Post issued the results of this test to
all applicants but the worker did not receive his. The worker
telephoned An Post and was informed that he was unsuccessful
in the test. The worker, however, was on the Central Sorting
Office list for Christmas work and was offered and accepted
work from 10th December, 1992. The worker was unable to work
beyond 22nd December, 1992 due to domestic reasons which An
Post initially believed, incorrectly, was due to illness on
his part. Correspondence passed between An Post and a number
of public representatives relating to the worker's absence
from work.
4. The issue was referred by the worker to the Labour Court
under Section 20(1), of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969.
The Court investigated the matter on the 27th October, 1993.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. To be offered a full-time temporary position and a
short time later to have it withdrawn was distressing for the
worker.
2. An Post had two addresses on the computer for the
worker.
3. The worker did not receive notification of the aptitude
test results.
4. An Post in reply to a number of public representatives
incorrectly attributed the worker's absence from work in
December, 1992 as being due to illness.
5. The reference provided by An Post was inadequate.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The results of the aptitude test were issued to all
candidates.
2. The change of offer of employment and the non-receipt of
the aptitude results were not connected with the fact that the
worker did not take up an offer of employment in April, 1992.
3. The misunderstanding as to the reason for the worker's
non-attendance on the last few days of the Christmas season
was incorrectly stated in replies to public representatives.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court has considered the submissions of the parties and
the oral evidence submitted at the hearing. It is clear to the
Court that this long drawn-out dispute arose and continued because
of serious communication inaccuracies on the part of An Post.
In the first instance, the claimant was offered in error a
full-time temporary position and had the offer withdrawn within a
very short space of time. The Court understands the deep felt
disappointment which this involved for the claimant who had been
seeking full-time employment over a long period.
The second inaccuracy related to correspondence from An Post to
public representatives relating to the claimant. An Post
incorrectly attributed the claimants absence from work in the days
preceding Christmas 1992 as being due to illness whereas the
claimant had clearly notified that it was due to a family crisis.
The claimant considered that, in context, "illness" could easily
be misinterpreted
In addition to and perhaps because of these happenings, the
claimant regarded the standard employment reference which he
received from An Post as totally inadequate.
Despite all the correspondence which has taken place between the
parties, the Court recommends that the dispute should be finalised
by
- a formal letter from An Post acknowledging again the
communication errors referred to above and apologising
for any resultant distress, embarrassment and
inconvenience caused to the claimant
- an appropriate work reference distinct from the standard
one.
The Court recommends that the claimant should accept this course
as finalising the dispute and that he desist from pursuing it any
further.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
8th November, 1993. Kevin Heffernan
P.O'C/U.S. ----------------
Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Paul O'Connor, Court Secretary.