Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD93448 Case Number: LCR14265 Section / Act: S20(1) Parties: ADVANCE TYRE COMPANY LIMITED - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Alleged discriminatory recruitment practices.
Recommendation:
The Court, having considered the views expressed by the parties in
their oral and written submissions, recommends that the claimant
be given first call on any temporary work which may become
available in the future.
The Court so recommends.
Division: MrMcGrath Mr Brennan Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD93448 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14265
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES: ADVANCE TYRE COMPANY LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION)
AND
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Alleged discriminatory recruitment practices.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company is involved in the retail/wholesale distribution
of tyres, batteries and exhausts and provides related services.
The Company has 27 outlets throughout the country, employing 142
workers - 19 outlet-based staff and 23 central support-staff. The
worker was employed by the Company in its Waterford outlet, on a
full-time basis, from 1988 to 1991, when he was made redundant.
In February, 1991, he was re-engaged as a temporary fitter and
holiday-relief worker, until November, 1992. From June, 1992
until February, 1993, the worker was employed as relief-cover,
working between 2 and 5 days each week. During this period
(April, 1992) a permanent employee left his job, creating a
vacancy for which the worker applied. His application was
unsuccessful. The Union claims that he was passed over for the
position because "his age was held against him". The Company
rejects the Union's claim. The Union sought to have the dispute
investigated by the Labour Relations Commission but the Company
was reluctant to attend a conciliation conference. The Union
referred the dispute to the Labour Court, on the 28th of July,
1993, in accordance with Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations
Act, 1969. The Court investigated the dispute, in Waterford, on
the 26th of October, 1993.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. Management informed the worker both before and during
the interview for the permanent position that his age (46)
would be held against him.
2. The worker has considerable experience and a record of
satisfactory performance. The Company, however, chose to
employ a 21-year-old with no relevant experience.
3. The Company did not inform the worker that a full
driving license was vital to his being employed permanently.
4. The worker is seeking to be given any temporary locum
work that becomes available, and to be considered for the
next permanent position which becomes available with the
Company.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The worker's employment was terminated in February, 1993
because he was unsuitable for the job specified in the
changed working-roles in the depot. Staff in the outlet are
required to be multi-skilled, to be numerate and to be able
to deal with customers on the floor and on the telephone. It
is also essential that they can drive, and hold a full
driver's license. The worker had been advised on several
occasions to obtain a full driver's license.
2. The Company did not discriminate against the worker on
grounds of age. This is supported by the fact that he was of
similar age when he was engaged by the Company, as relief-
cover, from June, 1992 to February,1993. Management actually
encouraged the worker to apply for the permanent position.
3. As the general thrust of the Company is cost-cutting,
there is no guarantee that there will be temporary locum work
available. Any permanent positions that may arise will be
filled by competition.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court, having considered the views expressed by the parties in
their oral and written submissions, recommends that the claimant
be given first call on any temporary work which may become
available in the future.
The Court so recommends.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
30th November, 1993 Tom McGrath
M.K./A.L. _______________
Deputy Chairman
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should by addressed to
Mr. Michael Keegan, Court Secretary.