FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : DONNOLLY MIRRORS LTD (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Flood Employer Member: Mr McHenry Worker Member: Mr. Somers |
1. Appeal against the Rights Commissioner's Recommendation IR709/99GF.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company is located in Naas, Co. Kildare. It employs approximately 500 staff.
The worker concerned has been employed since 1991 as a General Operative in the Added Features Mirror area of the Company.
On numerous occasions the worker concerned applied for promotional positions of Team Leader and Supervisor and to date has not been successful. On one occasion he was selected on a panel of five for the position of Supervisor but was not called.
In July, 1998, the worker concerned applied for a position of Team Leader but again was not successful at interview. He raised the matter with Management and was informed that he did not have coater room experience, the successful candidate did not have this experience either.
In October, 1998, after gaining the necessary experience he applied again for a position of Team Leader and again was unsuccessful. Management informed him that his organisational experience was not good enough.
The Union maintains that it's member was treated unfairly by the Company given his length of service, loyalty and willingness to gain the necessary experience outlined by the Company.
The Company states that this worker was treated in the same way as any of the candidates applying for the positions.
The issue could not be resolved at local level and was referred to a Rights Commissioner for investigation. His recommendation issued on the 15th of December, 1999, as follows:-
"I recommend he be provided with a further opportunity to compete for a team-leaders position and his application be given favourable consideration."
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 18th of April, 2000, the earliest date suitable to the parties.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The worker concerned was treated unfairly by the Company given that he has almost ten years service with the Company. He has an exemplary record, and has proved his loyalty and committment to the Company over the years.
2. He obtained the experience that Management deemed necessary for the promotional posts.
3. To have been short listed for the position of Supervisor should mean that he has sufficient experience and competence.
4. The Company should provide a Team Leader position for the worker concerned and address the financial loss suffered as a consequence of not being selected for the Team Leader position in October, 1998.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company must have the right to appoint to any position the person most suitable at that time to fill that position. No employee has an automatic right to be promoted.
2. The worker concerned was spoken to on numerous occasions by his Production Supervisors regarding time-keeping, unauthorised absence from production lines, and making personal phone calls.
3. He was treated in the same way as any of the candidates applying for the positions. Following the interviews he was given feed back indicating his weaknesses.
4. The interview board concerned are confident that correct appointments were made and correct decisions taken in relation to this particular appointment.
DECISION:
The Court having considered the written and oral submissions does not find that the claimant was treated unfairly by the Employer.
The Court therefore upholds the Rights Commissioner's Recommendation and rejects the appeal.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Finbarr Flood
20th April, 2000______________________
GB/GBChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Gerardine Buckley, Court Secretary.