Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD94350 Case Number: AD9485 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: AER RIANTA - and - A WORKER;SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Appeal against Rights Commissioner's recommendation No. CW112/94.
Recommendation:
The Court does not find sufficient evidence to warrant the
upholding of the appeal against the Rights Commissioner's
recommendation.
However, the Court notes in this case opportunities are available
to the claimant to develop his career further in the future within
the organisation.
The Court so decides.
Division: Mr Flood Mr McHenry Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD94350 APPEAL DECISION NO. AD8594
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES:
AER RIANTA
AND
A WORKER
(REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION)
SUBJECT:
1. Appeal against Rights Commissioner's recommendation No.
CW112/94.
BACKGROUND:
2. The dispute concerns a claim by the Union that the worker
concerned should have been upgraded to Superintendent C level
in 1983.
The Company operates two avenues to promotion for clerical
staff. The first is a job evaluation system in which jobs
are assessed for regrading. Failing to have a job upgraded,
workers can avail of an appeal mechanism to have the job
re-assessed. The other avenue is by way of staff vacancy
notices. Candidates undergo a formal interview and, in some
cases, aptitude tests/written submissions may be required.
The worker was employed as a clerical grade 3 clerk since
1977. In 1981, he had his job assessed and was upgraded to
clerical grade 1, using a points scoring system.
In 1982, the worker again submitted his job, through his
manager, for evaluation. The worker received no reply and
was informed by Personnel Department, after a year, that the
application had been mislaid. The worker was requested to
re-submit his claim. He did not do so.
Shortly afterwards the worker's manager was replaced by
another manager and the worker was assigned to a new job. In
1988, the worker was granted three years leave of absence.
He returned in 1991 and was assigned to the Administration
Department under his former manager. A request, in December
1991, to his manager to have his job upgraded was not
processed.
The dispute was referred to the Rights Commissioner and a
hearing was held on 10th June, 1994. The Rights
Commissioner's recommendation follows:-
"I recommend that the worker accepts the Company's
position in this dispute".
(The worker was named in the above recommendation).
The Union appealed the recommendation to the Labour Court
under Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969, on
27th June, 1994. A Labour Court hearing took place on 17th
November, 1994.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The worker's job, which he had developed considerably,
should have been upgraded to Superintendent C Level in
1981. In 1982, his manager supported another claim for
up-grading but his application form, sent to the
Personnel Department, was mislaid.
2. The worker's new job, which resulted after a change of
managers, had little scope for regrading. His new
manager had promised to support a job evaluation request
after six months.
3. The worker's career has failed to advance as it should
have. Workers who were junior to him have been promoted
above him. There has been a considerable financial loss
to the worker because of the Company's failure to
process his job evaluation form.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The worker was promoted two grades, from clerical 3 to
clerical 1, in 1981. The Union did not make an appeal
through the Company's grievance procedure as it could
have done, if it felt the worker should have been
promoted to Superintendent C level. There is no record
of the worker having applied for promotion under the
staff vacancy notices. The worker did not reapply, as
requested, to have his job reassessed when his
application form was mislaid in 1982.
2. There have been many reorganisations in the Company
since 1982. It is up to the worker to develop his
current job in order to present it for evaluation. The
worker can apply for any promotional positions
advertised in the staff vacancy notices.
DECISION:
The Court does not find sufficient evidence to warrant the
upholding of the appeal against the Rights Commissioner's
recommendation.
However, the Court notes in this case opportunities are available
to the claimant to develop his career further in the future within
the organisation.
The Court so decides.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
6th December, 1994 Finbarr Flood
C.O'N./M.M. _______________
Deputy Chairman