FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : BUS EIREANN - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr McGee Employer Member: Mr Grier Worker Member: Mr Nash |
1. Compensation
BACKGROUND:
2. The case concerns a case between the parties concerning the procedures used by the Company to fill a Relief Team Leader vacancy in the Stranorlar Garage.
The worker has been employed as a craftworker for 15 years. The position of Relief Team Leader was advertised in late August, 2004, with a closing date of 9th of September, 2004. Two Craftsmen applied including the worker concerned. The Union's case is that management advised the second worker that it would accept his application for the post on the 10th of September, 2004, the day after applications were due (the second worker left a medical certificate in work on that day). In the event, the second worker was successful in obtaining the post of Relief Team Leader. The Company's view is that the second worker was late with his application as he was on sick leave with an injured hand.
The Union referred the case to the Company's Joint Industrial Relations Forum (J.I.R.F.) which, in its recommendation, rejected the Union's case. The Union then referred the case to the Labour Court on the 13th of June, 2006, in accordance with Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relation Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 19th of June, 2007, in Sligo. The worker agreed to be bound by the Court's recommendation.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The worker should be compensated for the unfair procedures adopted by the Company. This has resulted in him being denied a job and suffering a financial loss.
2. The Maintenance Manager has admitted that he told the second worker that he would accept his application for the post on the 10th of September, 2004, the day after the closing date. The second worker was in work until the 3rd of September, 2004, and could have applied for the post in time.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The selection process was carried out in a proper manner and the most suitable candidate was chosen for the post. The second worker's application was accepted one day late as he was out of work with an injured hand and may not have seen the advertisement poster.
2. The J.I.R.F. considered the Union's claim and rejected it. Any alteration of the J.I.R.F.'s findings will seriously undermine the effectiveness of the agreed procedures.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has considered the submissions made by the parties.
While the Court is of the view that the Company deviated somewhat from the terms set out in its job advertisement in allowing an application which was one day late, this was taken into account by the J.I.R.F in its consideration of the compensation claim.
It is the view of the Court that the intention of Clause 5 of the "Framework for Negotiation and Dispute Resolution" between Bus Eireann and the Trade Unions, although couched in somewhat obscure language, was thateithera case would go to a statutory third partyorthat the disputant parties would request a recommendation from the J.I.R.F., the intention then being that such a recommendation would be accepted. The Court advises that this part of Clause 5 of the "Framework" be re-examined by the parties with a view to providing more clarity.
Given that the J.I.R.F. is an independently-chaired body having joint representation, the Court recommends that its findings should be upheld. This does not excuse the Company's lax attitude to interview procedures which they themselves had set. The rules for situations such as the acceptance of late applications for vacancies should be clearly set out.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Raymond McGee
9th July, 2007______________________
CONDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Ciaran O'Neill, Court Secretary.