FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : COCA COLA BOTTLERS IRELAND 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: Mr O'Neill |
1. Appeal Of Recommendation Of A Rights Commissioner R-060903-IR-08/JC
BACKGROUND:
2. The Claimant commenced working for the Company in 1997 and was made redundant in December 2007 when the factory closed. This dispute concerns the outcome of an internal competition for the position of delivery drivers, for which the Claimant unsuccessfully applied. The matter was referred to a Rights Commissioner for investigation and recommendation. On the 30th July, 2008 the Rights Commissioner issued the following Recommendation:-
- “In addition to the redundancy package negotiated between the Union and the CCBI in 2007 a Collective Agreement was negotiated between the parties covering the operating arrangements; job descriptions; hours of work/shift structure; performance standards; pay and benefits for Warehouse and Delivery Operatives. There were significant changes in relation in Delivery Operatives and a voluntary severance package was on offer to existing Drivers, however the Delivery function remained and the need for drivers remained. Not all of the then existing drivers opted for voluntary severance and they remained in their jobs. The decision to offer redeployment opportunities in both the Warehouse and Driver areas was supplemental to the redundancy package and the Collective Agreement agreed going forward. All Operatives seeking redeployment to the warehouse were eventually appointed. The claimant did not apply for one of those positions he applied only for the Driver position.
While it was subsequently possible for the company to appoint all of the applicants in the warehouse the respondent argued strongly that the position in relation to the Driver’s job is entirely different and that a successful candidate had to show that he was capable of successfully maintaining good customer relations as the Driver delivers the product and represents the company when he interacts with the customer.
I find that there was no agreement between the parties in advance that all applicants for re-deployment would be redeployed or on what procedure would be followed if an applicant or applicants were unsuccessful. I find that the company did follow fair procedure in the interview process and that neither the interview board nor the subsequent review of procedures resulted in the claimant being recommended for appointment as a driver. I also find that no actual driver vacancy currently exists. In all the circumstances I recommend against concession the Union’s claims (a) that the claimant be re-instated as a Driver and (b) that he be paid any verified loss of earnings. In view of the fact that the claimant was the only applicant for re-deployment who was not appointed to a position I recommend that the parties consider his appointment to a Warehouse Operative job should the claimant wish to pursue such an appointment and subject to agreement on the terms for his return to employment in CCBI including the return by him to the company of the redundancy payment already paid to him”.
- “In addition to the redundancy package negotiated between the Union and the CCBI in 2007 a Collective Agreement was negotiated between the parties covering the operating arrangements; job descriptions; hours of work/shift structure; performance standards; pay and benefits for Warehouse and Delivery Operatives. There were significant changes in relation in Delivery Operatives and a voluntary severance package was on offer to existing Drivers, however the Delivery function remained and the need for drivers remained. Not all of the then existing drivers opted for voluntary severance and they remained in their jobs. The decision to offer redeployment opportunities in both the Warehouse and Driver areas was supplemental to the redundancy package and the Collective Agreement agreed going forward. All Operatives seeking redeployment to the warehouse were eventually appointed. The claimant did not apply for one of those positions he applied only for the Driver position.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS
3. 1. It was reasonable for the Worker to assume that he would be appointed to a delivery driver as he had helped negotiate with the Company the terms and conditions of this new position.
2. The Worker had previously worked in the driver role for the Company.
3.Prior to this selection process no concerns about the Worker's customer service skills had ever been raised by the Company.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company rejects the notion that an employee's involvement in union activity entitles him to any preferential treatment.
2. Thers are no grounds to challange the operational management decision made in this selection process.
3. The Company is, however, willing to offer the Claimant a warehouse operative position.
DECISION:
Having considered the written and oral submissions of the parties, the Court is of the view that the Rights Commissioner's recommendation was the correct one in the circumstances.
The Court accordingly decides to uphold the Rights Commissioner's Recommendation and dismiss the appeal.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Raymond McGee
8th December, 2008______________________
JMcCDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Jonathan McCabe, Court Secretary.