Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD94475 Case Number: AD9492 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: DUBLIN INSTITUTE FOR ADVANCED STUDIES - and - MANUFACTURING SCIENCE FINANCE |
Appeal by the Institute against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation BC89/94.
Recommendation:
5. The Court having considered all of the views expressed by the
parties in their written and oral submissions finds no grounds
have been adduced to warrant amending the recommendation of the
Rights Commissioner.
Accordingly the Court upholds the Rights Commisioners
recommendation and rejects the appeal of the Institute.
The Court so decides.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Keogh Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD94475 APPEAL DECISION NO. AD9294
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 13(9)
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES: DUBLIN INSTITUTE FOR ADVANCED STUDIES
and
MANUFACTURING SCIENCE FINANCE
SUBJECT:
1. Appeal by the Institute against Rights Commissioner's
Recommendation BC89/94.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker commenced employment at Dunsink Observatory in 1985
in the basic Technician Grade. He was mainly involved in routine
assembly, maintenance and draftsmanship in the electronics field.
As part of his duties the worker served a period of one year on
secondment to the Royal Greenwick Observatory in the Canary
Islands. The worker applied for promotion to the Senior
Technician Grade but the Board of Management at Dunsink rejected
the claim. In 1992 the Senior Professor in the electronics
department at Dunsink retired. The new incumbent of the office
indicated that the electronics section would be phased out at some
future date as it was not compatible with his research programme.
The worker referred the dispute to a Rights Commissioner.
The Rights Commissioner investigated the dispute on the 4th
August, 1994 and in his recommendation BC89/94 recommended:-
"that the employee be promoted to the Senior Technician
Grade from 26th November, 1993".
On the 13th September, 1994 the Institute appealed the
recommendation to the Labour Court under Section 13(9) of the
Industrial Relations Act, 1969. The Court heard the appeal on the
8th December, 1994.
INSTITUTE'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. Under Section 18 of the Institute for Advanced Studies
Act, 1940 the Council of the Institute has power to appoint
such and as many officers of the Institute as it thinks
proper. This is subject, to the approval of the Ministers for
Education and Finance. There is no vacancy at present for a
post of Senior Technician at Dunsink. The Board of Management
does not propose to seek the creation of such a post.
2. It is intended to phase out the electronics section on
the basis that it is not part of any future research
development programme. Therefore it would be illogical to
promote the worker, since the activity on which he is engaged
will at some future date cease to exist.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Union agreed to an independent assessment of the
worker's qualifications for promotion to Senior Technician.
The assessment took place on 26th November, 1993. The
assessor concluded that his quality of work, academic
qualifications and length of service were of such a standard
that he had no hesitation in recommending the worker for
promotion.
2. In 1978 there was a direct link established in relation
to pay and promotion between Technicians in U.C.D. and those
in Dublin Institute for Advanced Studies. The worker's
present service, experience and qualifications would qualify
him for promotion to Senior Technician at U.C.D.
3. The Union does not accept that the electronics section
will be phased out at some future date. It has been
established that the Institute has guaranteed work until the
first quarter of the year 2001.
DECISION:
5. The Court having considered all of the views expressed by the
parties in their written and oral submissions finds no grounds
have been adduced to warrant amending the recommendation of the
Rights Commissioner.
Accordingly the Court upholds the Rights Commisioners
recommendation and rejects the appeal of the Institute.
The Court so decides.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Tom McGrath
3rd January, 1995 -------------
L.W./U.S. Deputy Chairman