FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2001 SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : IARNROD EIREANN - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Carberry Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Appeal against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation IR2880/00/CW.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker concerned is employed as an Executive Grade 3 in the position of Administration Officer for the District Manager in Galway. He claims that it is his entitlement to relieve the District Manager. The Company have a designated person in place to carry out this task.
The Union referred the dispute to a Rights Commissioner for investigation and recommendation. His recommendation issued on the 15th February, 2001, as follows:-
“I recommend that (the worker) accepts the company position in this dispute.”
(The worker was named in the Rights Commissioner’s recommendation.)
The Union appealed the recommendation to the Labour Court on the 20th March, 2001, in accordance
with Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 24th
of April, 2002.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The worker’s predecessors had carried out this relief duty.
2. The worker has relieved Station Masters and has an in-depth working knowledge of each station, personnel, infrastructure, etc..
3. Continuity of work is guaranteed.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company consider that precedent is an unacceptable criterion on which to select candidates to positions.
2. The Station Master who is now acting in the District Manager’s position was appointed as Station Master in 1992.
3. Applicants for the position of Station Master were advised that, if successful, they would be required to carry out relief duty for the District Manager. The worker did not apply for that position.
DECISION:
Having considered the submissions of the parties to this appeal, the Court has reached the following conclusions:
1. The established arrangement within the Company is that management can select and designate a suitable person to act for a District Manager during temporary absences. The appropriateness of the current arrangements was not before the Rights Commissioner and, in consequence, is not before the Court.
2. In the present case the management have properly selected and designated a person to act for the District Manager. If the Union’s claim were to be conceded, it would have the effect of displacing that person.3. There is no agreement or understanding between the parties from which it could conclude that the claimant, by reason of his present grade, is entitled to act in the absence of the District Manager.
In all the circumstances, the Court concurs with the conclusions and Recommendation of the Rights Commissioner. The appeal is disallowed and the Recommendation of the Rights Commissioner is affirmed.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
29th April, 2002______________________
CH/MBDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Caroline Hayes, Court Secretary.