FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : ELIDA LEVER LIMITED (REPRESENTED BY THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - MARINE, PORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Flood Employer Member: Mr Pierce Worker Member: Mr Rorke |
1. Appeal against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation No. 722/96.
BACKGROUND:
2. On the 23rd September, 1996, the Company advertised a competition for a new post of Warehouse Co-ordinator and on the 21st October, 1996, named the successful applicant. One unsuccessful applicant, who had been employed by the company for 31 years, believed that he had already been carrying out all of the functions of the job, with the exception of one, for many years. He requested a written explanation from the Company as to why his application had been unsuccessful, but Management responded that it was not Company policy to do so. The issue was investigated by a Rights Commissioner who issued his findings and recommendation on the 21st March, 1997, as follows:-
"The Company stressed in its submission that "(the worker) with 31 years service is a valued member of the warehouse team and makes a positive contribution to the operation ......", one considers therefore that the request for information on his performance warranted a better and more open response than that received.
I recommend that (the worker) be given an early, written outline of his performance at the interview relative to the successful candidate.
I also recommend that the Company make an ex-gratia payment of £250 in compensation for the difficulty he experienced in obtaining this information."
(The worker was named in the Rights Commissioner's recommendation).
Both the Company and the Union appealed the recommendation to the Labour Court in accordance with Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. The Court heard the appeal on the 11th June, 1997, the earliest date suitable to the parties.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The claimant successfully carried out the duties outlined in the job advertisement for a considerable number of years with the exception of one duty only. He is entitled to a full and reasonable explanation as to why his application was not successful.
2. The Rights Commissioner's recommendation that the worker be given an explanation of his performance relative to the successful candidate would not explain why the Company found that he was not suitable. In addition the recommended payment of £250 is not adequate compensation for the humiliation and embarrassment suffered by the worker.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. It has never been Company policy to outline in specific terms why applicants are unsuccessful for positions within the Company. Final decisions must be based on Management's judgement or interpretation of who is the most suitable person for the position.
2. The Company rejects the Rights Commissioner's recommendation of payment of £250 compensation for alleged difficulty in obtaining information from the Company. The worker was informed of the Company's policy and his requests for meetings with the Operations Manager and the Managing Director were met. Payment of compensation could encourage similar claims from employees in the future should they be unsuccessful in applying for vacant positions.
DECISION:
The Court, having considered the written and oral submissions made by the parties, is of the view that the Company should discuss his performance at interview with the claimant as requested, with particular emphasis on any areas for development, for future promotional opportunities.
Given the above, the Court does not recommend payment of an ex-gratia payment in this case.
The Rights Commissioner's recommendation should be amended accordingly.
The Court so decides.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Finbarr Flood
27th June, 1997______________________
D.G./D.T.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Dympna Greene, Court Secretary.