FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : REGIONAL TECHNICAL COLLEGE CARLOW (CARLOW RTC) - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY IRISH MUNICIPAL, PUBLIC AND CIVIL TRADE UNION) DIVISION : Chairman: Employer Member: Worker Member: |
1. Filling of the post of college librarian.
BACKGROUND:
2. On 1st January, 1993, under the Regional Technical Colleges Act, 1992, all staff employed in the regional technical colleges became college staff. The College had formerly been run by the Vocational Educational Committees. It was agreed that the College Librarian post would be filled by competition confined to college staff.
The worker in question took up her duties at Carlow RTC in 1985. The Union claims that she has always held the post of college librarian, whereas the College maintains that her post is that of assistant college librarian. The worker went on maternity leave in May, 1994, and, following extended sick leave, did not return until September, 1995. An interview for the post of college librarian was held on 15th November, 1995. The worker, who was the only applicant, was informed on 16th November, 1995 that she was unsuccessful. The post was advertised for open competition in the national press on 17th November, 1995.
The worker applied for the open competition but was not among the 5 people shortlisted. The Union referred the dispute to the Labour Relations Commission (LRC) in regards to 2 issues:-
(1) Shortlisting for interview on the basis of qualifications higher than
those required for the post.
(2) As a result of shortlisting, the person filling the post since 1985 (the
worker) was not granted an interview.
The College refused to attend a conciliation conference with the LRC and the Union referred the dispute to the Labour Court on 22nd April, 1996, in accordance with Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on 11th June, 1996, in Portlaoise. At the hearing , the College was asked to supply additional information to the Court.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The worker took up her duty in 1985 and has worked as college librarian since then. She has tried at all times to improve the quality of the library, bringing it up to the best possible standard with very little resources.
2. There are 11 colleges in the Country. In 1993, the college librarian posts in these colleges were advertised in a confined competition and, with one exception, the librarian occupying the post was successful in the competition. The worker concerned should also have been successful as she was qualified for the job.
3. The worker was unsuccessful in the open competition as the college authorities decided to use higher qualifications than were necessary for the post. The Union requested the authorities not to proceed with the interviews until the matter was dealt with by the LRC. This request was ignored.
4. At the confined interview on 15th November, 1995, the worker felt that she was not given time to answer questions properly as references were made to "being in a rush". The post was advertised in the national press only 2 days after the confined competition.
COLLEGE'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The post of college librarian was an additional post sanctioned for the Regional Technical Colleges under phase 1 of the Institute of Public Administration (IPA) report in 1992/1993. The worker concerned holds the post of assistant college librarian. She never occupied the post of college librarian, which is a more senior and responsible post.
2. The College postponed holding interviews for the confined post until the worker returned from maternity/sick leave in August, 1995. She was unsuccessful in the confined competition. In the open competition, all candidates were treated fairly and equally. The 5 candidates were shortlisted following Department of Education guidelines.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court is disturbed that information it requested, regarding correspondence with the Department of Education regarding the ratification of the post in question, has not been provided, despite an undertaking given to the Court and numerous subsequent requests.
The Court has given full consideration to all of the information supplied by the parties in their oral and written submissions. The Court finds that the College, in the manner in which they have dealt with this issue, have treated the claimant most unfairly. Their approach to the dispute, the Court considers, has been unhelpful and not conducive to developing and maintaining a good industrial relations climate in the College.
The Court recommends that, in all equity, the post should be re-advertised and that the claimant, together with all of the previous applicants, should be so advised in writing.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Tom McGrath
29th July, 1996______________________
C.O'N/D.T.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Ciaran O'Neill, Court Secretary.