FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2001 SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : CORK HARBOUR COMMISSIONERS - AND - A WORKER DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Flood Employer Member: Mr Grier Worker Member: Mr. Somers |
1. Appeal of Rights Commissioners Recommendation IR10820/02/JH.
BACKGROUND:
2. The appeal concerns a worker who has been employed by the Company as a casual employee for many years. In 2001 a temporary part-time vacancy of six weeks duration arose for an additional employee to work on the docks. The duties include driving of tugmasters, forklift of trucks, unaccompanied cars etc,. The stevedoring service for car ferries is provided by Ringaskiddy Stevedoring Limited (RSL), a subsidiary of the Port of Cork Company. The claimant contends that these vacancies were always filled on a seniority basis and that he,as the senior person, should have been chosen. The Company rejected the claim. The dispute was referred to a Rights Commissioner for investigation. On the1st May, 2003 the Rights Commissioner issued her recommendation as follows:
"Based on the submissions and for the reasons set out in the foregoing I find that the selection process in relation to the position in 2001 adopted by the company was not unfair. It is clear indeed that this process followed in 2002 when the same requirements were set by the company, i.e. the requirement to have a driving licence. I do not therefore recommend concession of the worker's claim"
(the worker was named in the Rights Commissioner's recommendation).
0n the 22nd May, 2003 the worker appealed the recommendation to the Labour Court. The Court heard the appeal in Cork on the 8th October, 2003.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The position was always filled on a seniority basis. While the claimant did not possess a driving licence at the time, he had been driving on the docks for many years and had never been advised that he needed a driver's licence.
2. The claimant had forwarded his name to the Union to be placed on the list of applicants for the position and as far as he was concerned his name was submitted for the list.
3. The worker is claiming compensation for the number of weeks in 2001 when he was not allowed to take up the position. He obtained a driving licence for 2002.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. Over the years the Union representing workers in the area has insisted on seniority as the sole criterion for employment with RSL without reference to the Company. However, in this case and in response to overtures made by the Company to it, the Union submitted a list of names to be interviewed without any caveats. In doing so the Union accepted that seniority was not the sole deciding factor.
2. The claimant's name was not included in the list submitted by the Union. The successful applicant had been notified the week before the Company heard of any reference to the claimant.
3. In 2001 the claimant did not possess a driving licence of any kind, and from the Company insurance perspective,could not be covered to drive vehicles.
4. The claimant was employed in a temporary part-time capacity in 2002 after the successful applicant in 2001 advised Management he would not apply for the post. Earlier in 2003 the claimant was made permanent in the Company.
DECISION:
The Court, having considered the submissions made by the parties, agrees with the Rights Commissioner's conclusions and upholds her recommendation.
The Court therefore rejects the appeal in this case.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Finbarr Flood
16th October,2003______________________
TOD/BRChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Tom O'Dea, Court Secretary.