FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : WATERFORD CITY COUNCIL - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Ms Cryan Worker Member: Mr Nash |
1. Appeal of a Rights Commissioner's Recommendation No: r-078158-ir-09/JC.
BACKGROUND:
2. The case is an appeal by the Union of Rights Commissioner's recommendation No: r-078158-ir-09/JC. The issue concerns a general operative employed by Waterford City Council who competed in an internal process for a permanent position as a Refuse Truck Operative. The worker was successful in being placed on the panel but enough vacancies did not arise for him to be appointed to the position.
The issue was referred to a Rights Commissioner for investigation. His Recommendation issued on the 25th January 2010, and recommended that the parties should meet and agree a process to resolve the position of the claimant, on the understanding that any agreement reached will be without precedent and not to be used in any future case that may arise.
On the 4th March, 2010, the Union appealed the Recommendation in accordance with Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969.
A Labour Court hearing took place on 17th November 2010.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The worker had extensive experience carrying out the role for over 14 years whichshould have been the determining factor in obtaining the promotion. Although he was placed on the panel he was ultimately unsuccessful which is unacceptable given his length of service in the organisation.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The process for such competitions was put in place at the Union's request and was strictly adhered to. The worker was deemed to be suitable for the post and placed on the panel but there were simply not enough vacancies for him to be appointed.
DECISION:
The Court has always taken the view that it is not its function to substitute its view for that of the employer in evaluating candidates for appointment to positions. In the absence of unfairness in the selection process or irrationality in the result, the Court cannot interfere with the employer's selection.
The Court cannot identify any unfairness or irrationality in this case. Consequently, the Court must uphold the recommendation of the Rights Commissioner and disallow the appeal.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
8th December, 2010.______________________
AH.Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Andrew Heavey, Court Secretary.