FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : DUN LAOGHAIRE RATHDOWN COUNTY COUNCIL - AND - A WORKER DIVISION : Chairman: Mr McGee Employer Member: Mr Doherty Worker Member: Mr. Somers |
1. Appeal of Rights Commissioners Recommendation IR15990/03/JH.
BACKGROUND:
2. The issue involves a claim by a worker who was engaged on a temporary one year contract as a Tenancy Liaison Officer in 2002. The Director of Housing's decision not to continue with what was a pilot project was taken following consultation with a number of people including the Administrative Officer. She contended that the decision not to continue with the pilot project was not related in any way to difficulties between the worker and the Administration Officer. The matter was referred to a Rights Commissioner for investigation and recommendation. On the 25th February, 2004, the Rights Commissioner issued her recommendation as follows:
“Based on the submissions made and for the reasons set out in the foregoing I consider that the employer was entitled not to renew the contract of employment of the worker and that he is not entitled to any financial recompense resulting from the decision of the Council"
On the 1st April, 2004 the worker appealed the Rights Commissioner's Recommendation to the Labour Court in accordance with Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 30th June, 2004.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
3.1 At a staff meeting held on the 30th January, 2003, staff were informed that contracts would be extended. Staff were also informed by other senior staff members that the contracts would be extended.
2. Funding was available for 6 months for two Tenancy Liaison Officers or 1 year for one post.
3. Unaware that a review was taking place, the worker could not defend his position.
4. Upon termination of employment, the reference given to the worker was unsatisfactory (it only stated that he had worked for the County Council).
5. No complaints had been received during the worker's period of employment and he had carried out his duties satisfactorily.
COUNTY COUNCIL'S ARGUMENTS:
4.1 The claim put forward by the worker is without foundation.
2. There was no expectation that this employment would continue beyond one year.
3. The Council acted reasonably and fairly at all times.
4. The Local Authority must engage in manpower planning which may involve the retention of a core of permanent employees surrounded by temporary employees who are deployed, retained or terminated in line with the operational needs of the organisation.
DECISION:
The Court was presented with conflicting evidence regarding the possible renewal of the fixed contract of the Tenancy Liaison Officers. However, having considered the written and oral submissions the Court finds that the employer was entitled not to renew the claimant's temporary employment contract and disallows the claimant's appeal.
The Court would, however, encourage the Council to revisit the employment reference given to the worker on the basis of his having, during his period of employment, satisfactorily performed his duties.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Raymond McGee
15th July, 2004______________________
JBDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Jackie Byrne, Court Secretary.