Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD95444 Case Number: AD9570 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: BORD NA MONA - and - A WORKER;SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Appeal against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation no. CW 133/95.
Recommendation:
While the Court accepts that the procedure for selection was
different in this case and that the application form provided was
less than satisfactory, it is the Court's view that the appellant
was not treated any differently than any of the other employees on
this occasion.
The Court is also of the view, given the Company's right of
selection, that the selection would have resulted in the same
people being selected even if the posts had been advertised and an
interview procedure been adopted by the Company.
The Court, therefore, upholds the Rights Commissioner's
Recommendation and rejects the appeal.
The Court so decides.
Division: Mr Flood Mr Pierce Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD95444 APPEAL DECISION NO. AD7095
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES:
BORD NA MONA
AND
A WORKER
(REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION)
SUBJECT:
Appeal against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation no. CW
133/95.
BACKGROUND:
The dispute concerns a claim by the worker that he was denied
a fair opportunity to be considered for the position of team
leader in the Bord's Timahoe bog location.
In February, 1995, an agreement was reached between the Union
and the Bord for the establishment of a work group to run the
sod peat production operation in the Timahoe area. Two Union
general operatives were to be appointed as team leaders to
the work group. Six workers, including the worker concerned,
were eligible for appointment.
The Bord maintains that the normal procedure for the
advertising of vacancies is to notify all concerned through
the weekly pay envelopes. A note was issued on 1st March,
1995, to the six workers, inviting them to indicate their
particular team or group interest. Only one reply was
received. The worker concerned did not reply.
The Union maintains that the proper procedures were not
complied with. It referred the dispute to the Rights
Commissioner and an investigation took place on 3rd July,
1995. The Rights Commissioner's recommendation is as
follows:
"I recommend that the Union and the worker accept that the
selection procedure adopted by the Board was fair".
The Union appealed the Rights Commissioner's recommendation
to the Labour Court on 27th July, 1995, under Section 13(9),
Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took
place on 19th September, 1995, in Portlaoise.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
1. There is an agreed procedure in the Company for selecting
team leaders. The procedure entails the display of notices
inviting workers to apply for the position and the
interviewing of applicants before selection. Management did
not follow the established procedure. The letter issued on
1st March, 1995, makes no specific reference to the team
leader position. The worker concerned had less than two
hours to decide whether to apply or not, as closing time was
12 noon on the same day.
2. The Rights Commissioner's recommendation failed to recognise
the inadequacy of the arrangements of the Company.
Management chose the two workers that it wanted for the job.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
1. The normal procedure for notifying workers of a vacancy is
through the weekly pay envelope, which was the procedure
followed in this dispute. Only one of the six workers
replied. Management considered all six workers, taking into
account each individual's skills and experience. The two
workers selected were the most suitable for the job.
2. Prior to the letter being sent on 1st March, 1995, a number
of management/workforce meetings took place in which plans
for the group system of working at Timahoe were outlined to
all concerned. The six workers would have known about the
impending appointments of team leaders. The reason for the
selection procedure being hurried was due to the operational
demands of the season.
DECISION:
While the Court accepts that the procedure for selection was
different in this case and that the application form provided was
less than satisfactory, it is the Court's view that the appellant
was not treated any differently than any of the other employees on
this occasion.
The Court is also of the view, given the Company's right of
selection, that the selection would have resulted in the same
people being selected even if the posts had been advertised and an
interview procedure been adopted by the Company.
The Court, therefore, upholds the Rights Commissioner's
Recommendation and rejects the appeal.
The Court so decides.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
2nd October, 1995 Finbarr Flood
C.O.N./A.K. ---------------
Deputy Chairman