FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : WESSEL CABLES LTD. (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION) DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr McHenry Worker Member: Mr. Somers |
1. Appeal against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation IR2566/00/CW.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company manufactures low voltage energy cables at its site in Finglas. The worker concerned is employed by the Company for eleven years.
In September, 2000, the Company installed a new extruder machine. The worker concerned applied for a position working on the new machine but was unsuccessful.
The Union states that the successful applicant had only three and a half years service and less overall experience than the worker concerned who had operated a similar type of machine for all of his service with the Company.
The Company states that the successful candidate had more experience on the particular extruder machine.
The dispute was referred to a Rights Commissioner for investigation. He found that the selection process was flawed and suggested that the Company should issue a written procedure to make all employees aware of how a selection process will operate in the future. In his recommendation which issued on the 8th of January, 2001, he
recommended that the Company implement his suggestion and make a payment of £500 to an agreed charity, and that the Union and the worker accept this in settlement of the dispute.
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 3rd of April, 2001.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The worker concerned is a model employee and a very experienced machine operator.
2. The successful applicant had only three and a half years service and less overall experience than the worker concerned who had eleven years service and had operated a similar machine during this time.
3. The worker was unfairly treated in relation to his application and he should not have suffered a potential loss of earnings because of a flawed selection process used by the Company.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The worker concerned had not operated this particular type of extruder machine and it was necessary to have the machine up and running as quickly as possible.
2. The successful applicant was trained on this extruder machine.
3. The Company has always reserved the right to choose the person most suitable for a particular position. It now holds interviews for all positions advertised.
DECISION:
Having given careful consideration to all aspects of this appeal, the Court is of the view that the recommendation of the Rights Commissioner should be upheld with the following exception:-
the recommended payment, which the Rights Commissioner indicated should be paid to a nominated charity, should instead be paid directly to the appellant in full and final settlement of his claim.
The Court also concurs with the view of the Rights Commissioner regarding the need for the formalisation of the selection procedures.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
2nd May, 2001______________________
GB/CCDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Gerardine Buckley, Court Secretary.