FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : I.S. VARIAN & COMPANY LIMITED (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr McGee Employer Member: Mr Doherty Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Appeal against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation R-031452-IR-04/TB
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company manufactures brushes for the domestic market and has been in business for more than 200 years. The worker has been employed for 40 years.
- The dispute concerns a stores position for which the worker concerned believes he should have been allowed apply. The position was filled externally in October, 2003. It had not been advertised internally. The worker claims that in the past he had carried out similar duties to the stores position, including security responsibility. The person in the stores position earns €16 more per week than the worker. The Union is seeking that the worker should be compensated.
The dispute was referred to a Rights Commissioner and his recommendation, issued on the 28th June, 2005, was as follows:
"Having carefully considered the submissions of both parties I do not recommend in favour of the Union claim"
The Union appealed the recommendation to the Labour Court on the 14th of July, 2005, in accordance with Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 31st of August, 2005.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The decision not to advertise the position internally is not in keeping with good industrial relations practices. This was clearly a promotional opportunity that the worker was denied.
2. The worker was qualified to carry out the function in the stores area. He lives within 5 minutes of the factory and would have been ideally suited to carry out the security elements involved.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:4. 1. The worker's rate of pay was agreed in 1992. The claim is cost increasing and is precluded under the terms of Sustaining Progress.
2. The worker is employed as a general operative and carries out completely different functions to that of the stores person.
3. The worker cannot be paid the bonus that the stores person earns as he is not performing those duties.
DECISION:
The Court has considered the submissions of the parties and is of the view that the claimant expected the stores job to be advertised as a promotional position as was previous custom and practice.
The Court, therefore, recommends that he be paid an award of €400 in compensation for the disappointment involved, given his long service and previous experience.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Raymond McGee
7th September, 2005______________________
CON/DHDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Ciaran O'Neill, Court Secretary.