FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : EIRCOM - AND - A WORKER DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Grier Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Appeal against Rights Commissioner’s Recommendation R-050051-06/Tb
BACKGROUND:
2. This case concerns an appeal of Rights Commissioners Recommendation R-050051-06/Tb. The dispute concerns an employee of Eircom who was engaged in training on behalf of the Company. The worker claims that an office notice issued nationally seeking applications for the post of full time trainers and a supplemental notice issued locally by management in Galway also sought employees with the relevant expertise to apply for the positions. The worker is also seeking an upgrade in line with comparable employees as part of an agreement entitled "Proposed Structure for Technical Training" concluded in 2001.
Management's position is that the office notices did not confer an automatic entitlement on the worker to the permanaent training position. Management further contend that the worker received all appropriate entitlements during the periods spent on training duties.
The dispute was referred to a Rights Commissioner for investigation and recommendation. The Rights Commissioner issued his recommendation on 15th November, 2007 and did not find in favour of the claim, although he did recommend that the Company should consider appointing the claimant to a full time training position on the basis of his suitability.
On the 20th December 2007, the worker appealed the Rights Commissioner's Recommendation in accordance with Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on 29th February, 2008.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
3 1 The notices posted up both nationally and locally in Galway confirm that vacancies existed for permanent training officers. The worker, having been temporarily in the grade for a significant number of years was entitled to the regrading in line with comparable staff.
2 There were other staff who were not initially employed as training staff who were upgraded on the basis of being on Technical Officer panels.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4 1 The worker was treated appropriately at all times by management in relation to his entitlements. There is no automatic entitlement to a Customer Team Leader or Technical Training role on the basis of temporary duties previously carried out. The notices are specific in that they refer to suitable vacancies that may arise in the future.
2 The appropriate allowances were paid while the worker was engaged in training duties. In line with the business needs, temporary trainers are required to return to their sustantive role within the Company.
3 Management have accepted the Rights Commissioner's Recommendation and will consider the worker for a training position should a vacancy arise.
DECISION:
The Court has carefully considered the submissions of the parties to this appeal.
The Court is not satisfied that the terms of Vacancy Notice 1/99 when read in combination with the supplemental notice of 7th May 1999 amounted to an offer of employment in a permanenet full time role as a trainer to successful candidates.
It is clear that the claimant was never formally appointed to such a role and the Court does not see any firm basis upon which it could hold that he became entitled to such an appointment.
In all the circumstances of the case the Court is satisfied that the recommendation of the Rights Commissioner is reasonable and ought to be affirmed.
Accordingly the appeal is disallowed.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
4th April 2008______________________
AHChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Andrew Heavey, Court Secretary.