FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : DUBLIN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY (REPRESENTED BY THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY IRISH MUNICIPAL, PUBLIC AND CIVIL TRADE UNION) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr McHenry Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Appeal against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation 204/98CW.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker qualified as a librarian in 1975 and was employed in the Dublin Public Libraries. She transferred to the City of Dublin Vocational Educational Committee (CDVEC) in 1983. The Institute was established on the 1st of January, 1993 and took over a number of third level colleges from the CDVEC. Staff who had been employed in the CDVEC transferred to the Institute.
A new library staffing structure was agreed between the parties by January, 1997. A competition to appoint two Senior Librarians and six Faculty Librarians was confined to existing library staff. In July, 1997, six employees at Grade 5 and 6 level (including the worker) applied for the two Senior Librarian posts. The worker was unsuccessful. In September, 1997, nine employees (including the worker) applied for the six Faculty Librarian posts. Three of the posts were filled but the worker was not successful. In 1997, a public competition for the three remaining posts was held. Again the worker applied but was unsuccessful.
The Union believes that the worker should have been appointed to the post of Faculty Librarian. It claims that her conditions of employment have deteriorated because she was not promoted. The Institute maintains that it adhered to all times to the agreement of January, 1997.
The dispute was referred to a Rights Commissioner and his recommendation is as follows:-
"I recommend that the worker and the Union accept that the failure to
upgrade was not unfair or contrary to any expressed or implied agreement."
(The worker was named in the above recommendation).
The Union appealed the recommendation to the Labour Court on the 17th of November, 1998, in accordance with Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 9th of March, 1999.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The worker was the librarian in the College of Commerce/DIT Aungier Street for 14 years and was in sole charge of the College library for that period. Librarians-in-charge have the same role as Faculty Librarians.
2. All Librarians-in-charge have the same duties and responsibilities. The worker was the only Librarian-in-charge who was not upgraded. She was not informed why, despite her requests to know.
3. The worker's conditions of employment became less beneficial because she was not upgraded (details supplied to the Court). The worker was very distressed at not being recommended for the post of Faculty Librarian, as she was one of the best qualified and most experienced candidates. She had already carried out the job for 14 years.
INSTITUTE'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The worker's pay and conditions have not deteriorated since she transferred from the CDVEC to the Institute.
2. The post of Faculty Librarian is more complex than that of Librarian (the worker's old post).
3. The implications for unsuccessful candidates for the various posts were pointed out to the Union, which agreed to the jobs being advertised in accordance with "the agreement for filling of Library posts in DIT."
4. The head of Library Service discussed various options with the worker, and the Institute has agreed to provide her with additional training. The post that the worker now holds will allow her to play a significant part in the development of the Institute's library service.
DECISION:
The Court accepts that the claimant in this case is a competent librarian who has demonstrated her commitment and professionalism over a long number of years. It fully appreciates her disappointment at not being appointed to one of the posts for which she applied. However, given the restricted number of posts available and the number of qualified candidates, the result of the competition could not be seen as an adverse reflection on any unsuccessful candidate.
The Court accepts that the appointments which gave rise to this dispute were made in the manner prescribed by the Department of Education and agreed with the Union. In the absence of manifest unfairness in the selection process (of which there is no evidence whatever in this case) the Court could not interfere with the eventual outcome of that process.
The Court notes that in the course of the hearing the representative of DIT indicated a willingness to discuss with the claimant her future career development and how her potential within the organisation might be maximised. The Court recommends that this initiative be undertaken as soon as possible.
The Court affirms the recommendation of the Rights Commissioner, and the appeal is disallowed.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
30th March, 1999______________________
C.O'N./D.T.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Ciaran O'Neill, Court Secretary.