Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD94197 Case Number: AD9442 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: AER LINGUS - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Appeal against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation CW21/94 concerning the non-selection of an allocator for promotion to the position of duty controller.
Recommendation:
Having considered the detailed submissions from the parties, the
Court has come to the conclusion that the Rights Commissioner's
recommendation dealt with the claim in a full and detailed manner,
is reasonable and decides that it be upheld.
The Court accordingly rejects the appeal.
Division: Ms Owens Mr McHenry Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD94197 APPEAL DECISION NO. AD4294
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES:
AER LINGUS
AND
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Appeal against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation CW21/94
concerning the non-selection of an allocator for promotion to
the position of duty controller.
BACKGROUND:
2. 1. As part of the Company's "Strategy for the Future", an
agreement was reached on a change in the structure of
the aircraft loading section of the Dublin Station
Department. This led to the creation of a new post of
duty controller operative D. The new position was a
combined supervisory and management position which
allowed a new agreed supervisory structure to be put
into place.
2. It was agreed that the new post would replace the
positions of foremen and allocators in the old
structure. Foremen, if interested, were automatically
appointed. All other grades, if eligible, had to apply.
3. 29 workers applied for 7 positions. Of the 4 allocators
(Grade C) who applied, 3 were selected and the 4
remaining positions were filled from the lower grade B
area. All of the 7 positions were filled following a
competitive interview.
4. The allocator who was not successful at interview
submitted a claim to the Rights Commissioners' service
alleging that he had been found unsuitable for the
position prior to the selection process. A Rights
2. AD4294
Commissioner's investigation took place on 22nd
February, 1994 and the Recommendation as follows was
issued on 7th March, 1994.
"I recommend that the Union and the worker accept
that he was not unfairly deprived of the position
of co-ordinator in the competition for these
posts".
*The worker was named in the Recommendation.
5. By letter dated 30th March, 1994, the Union appealed the
Rights commissioner's Recommendation to the Labour Court
under Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act,
1969. The Labour Court heard the appeal on 17th May,
1994.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Union is making this appeal on the grounds that the
Rights Commissioner's decision was based on the
suitability of the candidate and not on the Union's view
that the worker was the victim of a pre-determined
decision by the Company. The Union accuses the Company
of victimisation and discrimination by iniating a
selection process which was neither objective nor
impartial as 2 of the 3 members of the interview board
were from local management and their decision had
already been made.
2. All of the allocators with the exception of the worker
were selected for the new position. The other 4
positions were filled from lower grades. The new job
was a combination of the work of an allocator and a
foreman. None of the successful applicants from a lower
grade had experience of those jobs.
3. The Company acknowledged the worker's abilities as an
allocator. He has been involved in the training of both
allocators and foremen. The worker's lack of success in
the competition has been received with surprise and
dismay by his colleagues (details supplied to the
Court). The worker's experience and work record should
have qualified him for the new position. The worker is
a victim of discrimination because of his outspokenness
and frankness (details supplied to the Court).
3. AD4294
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS
4. 1. Following agreement on a new staffing structure at the
Labour Relations Commission, the Company held a
competition for a new and distinctly different position
of duty supervisor. The successful applicants were
appointed following a competitive interview. The worker
was considered less suitable for the position than 15 of
the 28 workers who had applied. This has been accepted
by the Rights Commissioner.
2. The Company cannot concede the Union's claim and it
refutes any accusation of victimisation or
discrimination. The Company has a responsibility to
appoint the best and most suitable workers to all
positions. This is particularly important when filling
supervisory positions.
3. The worker was required by virtue of agreements between
the Company and his Union and by Company policy, to
apply for the position in question. His non-selection
for the position was simply due to the fact that all
those who were selected were considered by the interview
board to be more suitable than the worker.
DECISION:
Having considered the detailed submissions from the parties, the
Court has come to the conclusion that the Rights Commissioner's
recommendation dealt with the claim in a full and detailed manner,
is reasonable and decides that it be upheld.
The Court accordingly rejects the appeal.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
23rd May, 1994 Evelyn Owens
J.F./M.M. _______________
Deputy Chairman