Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD95178 Case Number: LCR14772 Section / Act: S20(1) Parties: E.S.B. - and - A WORKER |
Advertising of Driving Positions at E.S.B. depot in Blanchardstown.
Recommendation:
While acknowledging that major negotiations are taking place
within the Company involving the parties on the Industrial Council
a twenty-month delay in dealing with this case through the
recognised procedures is totally unacceptable.
However, while acknowledging also the worker's right to refer his
case to the Court, the Court considered it important that these
recognised mechanisms not be interfered with at this stage.
The Court therefore recommends that at this stage, the case be
processed fully through the appropriate internal mechanism,
without further delay.
Division: Mr Flood Mr McHenry Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD95178 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14772
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES: E.S.B.
and
A WORKER
SUBJECT:
1. Advertising of Driving Positions at E.S.B. depot in
Blanchardstown.
BACKGROUND:
2. 1. The worker commenced employment with the Company on
29th May, 1979 as a general worker. In the summer of
1979, vacancies for relief drivers were advertised by
the Company. The worker applied for one of the
positions and was appointed to the relief driving panel
on 25th September, 1979. The worker became a permanent
driver in 1981.
2. Following negotiations between the Amalgamated
Transport and General Workers Union (A.T.G.W.U.) and
Services Industrial Professional Technical Union
(S.I.P.T.U.) a new Transport Drivers' Agreement was
agreed in September, 1992. This agreement allowed the
Company to employ linesmen as drivers as the need
arose. The Technical Engineering and Electrical Union
(T.E.E.U.) did not accept this agreement. Discussions
took place with the T.E.E.U. across the Dublin region
and as a result it was agreed to upgrade 3 drivers to
level 3 at the Blanchardstown depot. The positions
were filled on the basis of seniority as drivers at the
depot. Two of the level 3 promotions went to T.E.E.U.
members and the other level 3 position went to an
A.T.G.W.U. member. The worker claims that the
positions should have been advertised.
WORKERS'S ARGUMENT:
3. 1. The worker claims that the promotions at Blanchardstown
depot (one level 2 and 3 level 3 posts) should have
been advertised in accordance with the Employee Code of
Ethics as published by the Company and the provisions
of the new Transport Drivers' Agreement. The worker
was denied the right to apply for one of these
positions and has suffered financial loss as a result.
The worker states that he was not treated equally with
the other drivers in the depot in Blanchardstown.
2. The worker denies the Company's claim that he and
another worker are the most junior drivers in
Blanchardstown depot. The worker has tried to have his
case dealt with by the E.S.B. Industrial Council. He
has waited twenty months to have his case heard but on
each occasion a date was set for a hearing it was
cancelled for various reasons.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company denies that the worker was treated unfairly
in relation to the upgrading of 3 drivers (the level 2
promotion was a seperate issue) to level 3 at
Blanchardstown depot. The drivers concerned were
upgraded based on their seniority as drivers. The
worker concerned is the second most junior driver at
Blanchardstown depot. The worker commenced employment
with the Company as a general worker and not as a
driver. It was some years before the worker was
appointed a driver. The worker concerned is a level 4
driver.
2. Where vacancies arise for senior drivers or for
permanent level positions above level 4 they are
advertised among existing transport drivers within the
branch or regions. These positions are substantive and
are filled on the basis of a competitive interview.
The 3 drivers upgraded at the Blanchardstown depot were
not substantive positions and as such were not required
to be advertised.
RECOMMENDATION:
While acknowledging that major negotiations are taking place
within the Company involving the parties on the Industrial Council
a twenty-month delay in dealing with this case through the
recognised procedures is totally unacceptable.
However, while acknowledging also the worker's right to refer his
case to the Court, the Court considered it important that these
recognised mechanisms not be interfered with at this stage.
The Court therefore recommends that at this stage, the case be
processed fully through the appropriate internal mechanism,
without further delay.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Finbarr Flood
23rd May, 1995 --------------
L.W./U.S. Deputy Chairman
NOTE:
ENQUIRIES CONCERNING THIS RECOMMENDATION SHOULD BE ADDRESSED TO
MR LARRY WISELY, COURT SECRETARY.