FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : LIMERICK CITY COUNCIL - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Appeal Of Rights Commissioner's Recommendation R-056704-IR-07/POB.
BACKGROUND:
2. This dispute concerns a claim by the Worker that he is incorrectly listed on a seniority list and that his transfer from the Cleansing Department to another department was accordingly inappropriate. The matter was referred to a Rights Commissioner for investigation and recommendation. On the 28th July, 2008 the Rights Commissioner issued the following Recommendation:-
- “The case was the subject of two hearings and the second hearing was called to give the persons who were alleged to have agreed to a special seniority listing the opportunity to have their say prior to a Recommendation being issued on the matter.
Two of the staff involved did not recollect agreeing to any long-term seniority list among the five staff concerned.
The Council supplied the starting dates for all five employees in the cleaning department and supplied information that they were employed in the cleansing section, for some duties, since they joined the Council.
In my view, the claim that a special agreement existed was not convincingly proved and was not unanimous nor accepted by the Council. I am satisfied that the two staff who attended the hearing were employed in the cleansing section since the start of their employment. In that case, the agreement reached between SIPTU and the Council which states “staff will be selected for transfer on the basis of seniority within the section they are being transferred from”has to be relied upon. The time to bring any special issue regarding seniority to the table was during the Labour Court hearing or at the time of negotiating the agreement. As a result, I find that the Councils interpretation of the seniority list as per the official records is the appropriate one”.
- “The case was the subject of two hearings and the second hearing was called to give the persons who were alleged to have agreed to a special seniority listing the opportunity to have their say prior to a Recommendation being issued on the matter.
3. 1. The Worker has been a loyal, hard-working member of the Council's staff for over 20 years.
2. In 1989the Worker and several colloagues agreed a seniority list.
3.This seniority list should be honoured by the Council and the Worker should be reinstated to theCleansing Department.
EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Council was unaware of, and does not recognise, any private seniority list.
2. The 2004 agreement between the Council and the Union clearly states that the method of selecting staff for transfer would be based on seniority.
3. The Worker was selected for transfer in accordance with this agreement.
DECISION:
The Court notes that there is a dispute between the parties on whether an agreement on seniority was in fact reached. Even if such an agreement was reached there is clearly an issue as to whether it was ever formally recognised.
In these circumstances the Court is of the view that the City Council acted reasonably in applying seniority on the normally accepted basis of length of service. In these circumstances the Court believes that the conclusion reached by the Rights Commissioner is reasonable and should be affirmed.
Accordingly the appeal is disallowed.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
9th December, 2008______________________
JMcCChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Jonathan McCabe, Court Secretary.