Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD94694 Case Number: AD953 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: BANK OF IRELAND - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Appeal by the Union against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation No. ST393/94.
Recommendation:
The Court has considered all of the views expressed by the parties
in their oral and written submissions, together with the
recommendations of the Right Commissioner. The Court finds that
the manner in which the vacancy was filled left much to be desired
as indicated by the need for references to the Rights Commissioner
and the Court.
If this was to become normal procedure for the filling of
vacancies particularly where such vacancies carried improved terms
and conditions of employment it is the view of the Court that the
approach would lead to poor morale among members of the staff
denied the opportunity to develop their careers and be a recipe
for further acrimonious disputes.
The Court considers that the Bank and the Union should address
this particular issue as a matter of urgency and seek to agree
procedures which would enable the Bank to fill vacancies whilst at
the same time providing a career development path for the
employees.
The Court, however, taking account of all of the circumstances and
the recommendation of the Rights Commissioner considers that the
appointment made in this instance should be confirmed.
The Court so decides.
Division: Mr McGrath Mr Keogh Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD94694 APPEAL DECISION NO. AD395
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES:
BANK OF IRELAND
AND
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Appeal by the Union against Rights Commissioner's
Recommendation No. ST393/94.
BACKGROUND:
2. 1. Traditionally the security guard at the front car park
of the Bank of Ireland, College Green, always wore top
hat, red waist coat and tails. In 1986 the then
incumbent refused to continue wearing this uniform and
the grey uniform worn by other security staff was
provided to him. The traditional uniform has not been
worn since. In 1993 the parties reached agreement on a
restructuring programme of service staff positions in
the College Green complex. Lump sum payments were made
to workers for co-operation and flexibility and the
decision was made to re-introduce the traditional
uniform worn by the front car park security guard. The
then post holder refused to wear the uniform and
following a Rights Commissioner's investigation and
recommendation he was offered alternative employment and
paid a further ex-gratia lump sum to compensate for loss
of overtime.
2. The post was advertised and filled following interview.
An external candidate was appointed. The Union disputed
the appointment. The issue was again referred to a
Rights Commissioner who recommended that the post again
be advertised. The Company did so and following further
interviews the same worker was appointed. The Union
again objected to the appointment and the dispute was
referred to a Rights Commissioner for investigation and
recommendation. On the 11th October, 1994 the Rights
Commissioner issued his recommendation as follows:-
"I cannot find any reasonable grounds to change the
Bank's decision in this matter. It is a fact that
the Bank has incurred considerable expense including
payment of compensation to the previous job holder
(who refused to accept the new conditions in relation
to the change of uniform) and the employment of an
outside consultant to ensure transparency in the
selection process. The technical argument of the
Union in relation to the new application form is
really not sufficient grounds to set aside the
appointment which has now been made after an
exhaustive process. I recommend that the Union
accepts the Bank's good faith in the matter and its
assurance to me that there was no change in its
dealings with the Union."
On the 18th November, 1994 the Union appealed the
recommendation to the Labour Court. The Court heard the
appeal on the 9th January, 1995.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Bank is determined to appoint the selected worker
regardless of the existing custom and practice and the
rights of permanent members of staff. The notice
advertising the post clearly specifies the requirements
for the positions. Attached to the notice is an
application form clearly stating that it is for existing
permanent staff.
2. Traditionally promotions are filled from existing staff
as opportunities for promotion in the service are very
limited. The Union does not object to a worker being
appointed (from outside) to a basic grade i.e. porter.
It strongly objects to the worker concerned being
appointed to the promotional grade of front car park
security guard as he has not completed the normal
probationary period.
BANK'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The vacant position was advertised in the normal way.
It was never stated that the post was limited to
existing employees only. It is customary to receive
applications from external candidates and many are
received from relatives of existing employees.
2. The Bank short listed candidates for interview and the
interview panel reached a unanimous conclusion on the
successful candidate. The process used, namely
advertising applications, short listing and interviewing
is standard industry practice and is designed to ensure
objectivity and fairness at all stages. The Bank also
employed an independent external recruitment specialist
to sit on the interview panel.
3. It is Bank policy to fill all vacancies on merit and
suitability for the job. Service is therefore not a
determinant. The Bank has not changed its practices in
relation to a probationary period for employees.
4. Management has done its utmost to accommodate the
Union's aspirations on behalf of its members. The Bank
accepted and implemented the Rights Commissioner's
recommendations on two separate occasions, including
re-advertising the post for the second time. In
addition, the Bank paid a generous lump sum for
co-operation and flexibility and relocated and paid an
ex-gratia lump sum to the incumbent who did not want to
wear the traditional uniform. The Bank has acted in a
fair and reasonable manner.
DECISION:
The Court has considered all of the views expressed by the parties
in their oral and written submissions, together with the
recommendations of the Right Commissioner. The Court finds that
the manner in which the vacancy was filled left much to be desired
as indicated by the need for references to the Rights Commissioner
and the Court.
If this was to become normal procedure for the filling of
vacancies particularly where such vacancies carried improved terms
and conditions of employment it is the view of the Court that the
approach would lead to poor morale among members of the staff
denied the opportunity to develop their careers and be a recipe
for further acrimonious disputes.
The Court considers that the Bank and the Union should address
this particular issue as a matter of urgency and seek to agree
procedures which would enable the Bank to fill vacancies whilst at
the same time providing a career development path for the
employees.
The Court, however, taking account of all of the circumstances and
the recommendation of the Rights Commissioner considers that the
appointment made in this instance should be confirmed.
The Court so decides.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
18th January, 1995 Tom McGrath
T.O'D./D.T. _______________
Deputy Chairman