Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD94717 Case Number: AD9510 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: DUBLIN CORPORATION - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION;IRISH NATIONAL PAINTERS AND DECORATORS TRADE GROUP |
Appeal of Rights Commissioner's Recommendation No. ST219/94 concerning the alleged unfair treatment of a worker in relation to a promotional post.
Recommendation:
The Court having considered the written and oral submissions of
both parties finds no reason to change the Rights Commissioner's
Recommendation.
The Court accordingly upholds the Rights Commissioner's
Recommendation and rejects the appeal.
The Court so decides.
Division: Mr Flood Mr Pierce Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD94717 APPEAL DECISION NO. AD1095
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES:
DUBLIN CORPORATION
AND
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
(IRISH NATIONAL PAINTERS AND DECORATORS TRADE GROUP)
SUBJECT:
1. Appeal of Rights Commissioner's Recommendation No. ST219/94
concerning the alleged unfair treatment of a worker in
relation to a promotional post.
BACKGROUND:
2. 1. The Corporation holds competitions, approximately once
every two years, to fill existing vacancies for
permanent craftsforeman in the housing maintenance
section and also to form a panel from which
craftspersons are selected to fill vacancies for
temporary foreman and chargehands arising within a
period of two years from the date of formation of the
panel. The names of successful candidates are placed in
order of merit on the temporary panel. Vacancies for
established foreman positions are filled from the panel.
2. A competition for both permanent and temporary foremen,
housing maintenance section was advertised on 21st
September, 1993. 84 applicants were called for
interview and 22 craftspersons were placed on the panel
in April, 1994. The panel will last for two years from
that date.
3. The worker in this case has thirty-eight years' service
with the Corporation. In two previous competitions, in
1988 and 1991, the worker had been successful in being
placed on the temporary panel. In April, 1994, the
worker was unsuccessful in his application and he
reverted to his substantive grade of craftsperson.
4. The Union submitted a claim to the Rights Commissioner's
Service that the worker had been unfairly treated. The
Rights Commissioner investigated the dispute and his
Recommendation was issued on 29th November, 1994:-
"I am satisfied that the claimant has a fair case
for some consideration for his losses which are
considerable. He has enjoyed the additional #50
per week for some years and while I would be most
anxious to uphold generally the integrity of the
panel system I do believe that a case exists for
some form of recognition on a non-prejudicial basis
for his present embarrassing position on the paint
gang.
I therefore recommend that he accepts the sum of
#1,500 in full and final settlement of all his
claims. This sum to be paid by the Corporation
without prejudice or precedent."
5. On 2nd December, 1994, the Union appealed the
Recommendation to the Labour Court under the terms of
Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969.
The Labour Court heard the appeal on 31st January, 1995.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The worker was removed from the panel in April, 1994
without any consideration of his impeccable work record
with the Corporation. The worker has thirty-eight
years' service with the Corporation and has acted as a
temporary foreman since 1974 (details supplied). The
worker also has service as a temporary rent collector.
2. Since his demotion, the worker has been working beside
painters whom he would have had to discipline in the
past while he was a supervisor. Given that the worker
is within two years of retirement, the Corporation's
actions are insensitive to say the least.
3. The worker's demotion will have an adverse effect on his
superannuation entitlements with an overall loss of
#3,892.20 (details supplied). It is well established
within the Public Service that workers in an acting
capacity, close to retirement, will benefit from
superannuation benefits at the higher rate. The Union
is seeking to have the worker reinstated to a temporary
foreman position.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The panel system has served both parties well and there
is no claim by the Union for any change in the present
system. Under the terms of the Agreement, with
changing fields of competition and different interview
boards, candidates may finish lower down on panels than
they did on previous occasions or indeed may not be
selected. The Corporation's position was previously
upheld by the Labour Court in LRC10951.
2. The Corporation cannot accept that any worker successful
at one competition for temporary foreman should continue
as a temporary foreman if not successful at a subsequent
competition. Acceptance of the Union's appeal would
have considerable repercussions throughout the
Corporation, local authorities and health boards
generally.
3. In the light of the Corporation's serious financial
position and the increased emphasis on greater
efficiency and effectiveness, it is important that the
quality of foreman being placed on these panels be the
very best available. In these circumstances the Union's
appeal should be rejected.
DECISION:
The Court having considered the written and oral submissions of
both parties finds no reason to change the Rights Commissioner's
Recommendation.
The Court accordingly upholds the Rights Commissioner's
Recommendation and rejects the appeal.
The Court so decides.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
21st February, 1995 Finbarr Flodd
J.F./D.T. _______________
Deputy Chairman