Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD95714 Case Number: LCR15091 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: BOLANDS MILLS LIMITED (Represented by THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS CONFEDERATION) - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Appointment of worker to a permanent position in the Laboratory.
Recommendation:
The question of casual employee status as against a permanent
employee does not arise in this case as it is accepted by both
parties that both employees were entitled to apply for this post.
It is the Court's view that selection for this particular post was
properly based on selecting the most suitable person for the post.
The Court noted the points made by the Company in relation to the
unsuccesful canditate's position in the pending restructuring.
Division: Mr Flood Mr Keogh Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD95714 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR15091
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES:
BOLANDS MILLS LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS CONFEDERATION)
AND
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Appointment of worker to a permanent position in the
Laboratory.
BACKGROUND:
2. In October, 1994, the Company invited applications for the
position of Laboratory Assistant. The Company received two
applications for the position and following interviews
selected an individual (long-term temporary worker) for
appointment. The Union claims that another applicant
(permanent employee) should have been selected on the basis
of seniority and proven ability.
Historically two workers, a senior laboratory technician and
a laboratory assistant were employed in the laboratory on the
Boland's Mills site. Both of these jobs were filled by
members of S.I.P.T.U.'s No. 2 Branch. During peak periods
(wheat season) an employee from S.I.P.T.U.'s No. 12 Food
Branch worked in the laboratory on a temporary basis. The
worker selected for appointment operated in the laboratory on
a temporary basis in the period 1988 to 1990 and on a
continuous basis since 1990. The Company claims that the
worker selected is the most suitable candidate for the job on
the basis of practical job experience, past job performance
record and expressed interest in the position.
The dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commission.
A conciliation conference was held but agreement was not
reached and the matter was referred to the Labour Court on
18th December, 1995, under Section 26(1) of the Industrial
Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on
2nd February, 1996.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Company/Union Agreement concerning vacancies/
promotions clearly states that due regard will be given
to all employees based on service and proven ability.
Both workers who applied for the position were equally
suitable and in the circumstances the worker with the
longest service should have been selected for the
position.
2. The Company and the Union are presently in negotiations
concerning rationalisation proposals and the Union is
concerned that the position of the permanent employee
will be affected.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The position of Laboratory Assistant has always been
held by a member of the No. 2 Branch of S.I.P.T.U. It
is agreed and accepted by the No. 2 Branch that all
appointments made are at the Company's discretion. In
the past, people who held these jobs in the laboratory
were recruited externally. Since 1973, all permanent
appointments to laboratory positions have been filled by
candidates selected at interview by management.
2. Given the fact that the Company's plans for
rationalisation and investment would result in job
losses, the Laboratory Assistant position was in the
first instance, advertised internally. Both applicants
were interviewed and assessed for the job. Management
selected the most suitable candidate for the job.
3. There is an agreed selection procedure with the No. 12
Branch of S.I.P.T.U. regarding vacancies in this branch
only. This procedure would apply to the filling of the
temporary laboratory position.
4. The dispute centres on management's right, to select
the most suitable candidates for this vacancy and
vacancies which will arise in the future. Having gone
through an appropriate procedure to select the person
for the job, the Company is satisfied that it has chosen
the most suitable person for the job.
RECOMMENDATION:
The question of casual employee status as against a permanent
employee does not arise in this case as it is accepted by both
parties that both employees were entitled to apply for this post.
It is the Court's view that selection for this particular post was
properly based on selecting the most suitable person for the post.
The Court noted the points made by the Company in relation to the
unsuccesful canditate's position in the pending restructuring.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
5th March, 1996 Finbarr Flood
F.B./S.G. _______________
Deputy Chairman
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Fran Brennan, Court Secretary.