FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : UDARAS NA GAELTACHTA (REPRESENTED BY THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - MANUFACTURING, SCIENCE, FINANCE DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Flood Employer Member: Mr McHenry Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Alleged discrimination.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker concerned has been employed in a clerical position by Udaras Na Gaeltachta since 1977.
She is one of nine employees who lodged claims for upgrading between 1991 and 1994. Following limited industrial action in 1994 in support of the upgrading claims, Udaras indicated in June, 1994, that it was in a position to upgrade eight of the claimants as part of an agreed new structure.
The worker in this case, who was on sick leave at the time following a period of maternity leave, was not upgraded while another employee who was working in the same section and doing the same work was upgraded. It is the Union's contention that there was no fair and transparent means used to differentiate between these two employees for the purpose of deciding who should be upgraded, and that the worker concerned was unfairly discriminated against.
The dispute was referred to the Labour Court in accordance with Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 18th November, 1998.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The worker was unfairly discriminated against in the selection of a candidate for upgrading, when a colleague of the same grade, undertaking the same work in the same section, was upgraded.
2. No fair and transparent means of selecting a candidate for upgrading was used.
3. The claimant's line manager's recommendation that the upgrading was merited was not refuted by Udaras.
4. Regrading from Grade 5 to Grade 4 should be implemented in this case, from June, 1994, when the discrimination took place.
UDARAS' ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. Under the "New Structure" which was agreed with the Union, a total of eleven upgradings were to take place.
2. It was agreed with the Union that the persons at the time occupying the posts to be upgraded (in accordance with the New Structure) would be upgraded without any selection process.
3. Udaras reject the contention that the claimant's colleague in the same section was engaged in similar work and cites examples of duties appropriate to the new higher grade on which she was already engaged, including the role of Secretary to the Deputy Chief Executive. Her post was, therefore, the appropriate post for upgrading.
RECOMMENDATION:
It is clear that a solution was found by the Employer to an outstanding claim for a number of upgradings.
It is also clear that as part of this solution the normal selection procedures were put aside on this occasion.
While the Union may not have formally accepted this arrangement, overall the solution met most of their claims in a particular fashion.
The Court, having considered all the information supplied, is satisfied that the upgradings were part of a package implemented using a particular formula.
The Court is not satisfied that there are grounds for conceding the Union's claim.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Finbarr Flood
11th December, 1998______________________
G.B./D.T.Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Gerardine Buckley, Court Secretary.