FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2001 SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : RT� - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Keogh Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Appeal against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation IR3170/00/GF.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker was employed by the Company as a Production Co-ordinator in Lyric FM. In May, 2000, he applied for the post of Assistant Producer, Television which was advertised internally. The selection process for the post was as follows:-
Practical Assessment
Initial Interview
Training Course
Final Interview
On the 19th of July, 2000, the worker attended the practical assessment. On the 18th of July, 2000, he received a phone call inviting him to attend the initial interview on the 26th of July, 2000. At this point, he informed the Personnel Department that he would be abroad on annual leave on this date but would be prepared to return to sit the interview. He was assured by Personnel that there was no need to return from holidays as his interview would be re-scheduled. However, when he returned from annual leave in August, he discovered the interviews had been concluded and the candidates were selected for the post. The Company apologised and stated that due to the pressure of completing the selection process, it was necessary to hold the interviews earlier than originally planned and every effort was made to contact him regarding the change. The Union argues that no effort was made to contact him.
The issue was referred to a Rights Commissioner for investigation. In his recommendation which issued on the 15th of March, 2001, he recommended that the worker be paid one months salary in compensation. The Company appealed the recommendation to the Labour Court on the 27th of April, 2001, in accordance with Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. The Court heard the appeal on the 18th of September, 2001.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. It was necessary to hold the initial interviews earlier than originally planned in order that fully trained Assistant Producers take up their posts in time for the September Television Programme schedule.
2. A goodwill payment of £250 (317.43 Euro) was offered to the worker to compensate him for his disappointment in not having the opportunity to sit the initial interview.
3. The worker is highly regarded in the organisation. His future prospects of promotion will not be hindered in any way.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The worker concerned informed Personnel that he would be on holidays on the date of his interview. He told them he was prepared to return to sit the interview but was told there was no need and was assured on three occasions that his interview would be re-scheduled on his return in August.
2. The worker had his mobile phone with him on holidays and no attempt was made to contact him.
3. He was treated unfairly by the Company by being denied the opportunity to compete for a promotional post and he should be compensated accordingly.
DECISION:
Having considered the submissions of the parties, the Court is satisfied that the conclusions and Recommendation of the Rights Commissioner is a reasonable and measured response to the facts giving rise to this dispute.
Accordingly, the Court affirms the Recommendation of the Rights Commissioner and disallows the appeal.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
12th October, 2001______________________
G.B./C.C.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Gerardine Buckley, Court Secretary.