FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : EIRCOM - AND - A WORKER DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Hayes Employer Member: Mr Doherty Worker Member: Mr Nash |
1. Appeal of a Recommendation of a Rights Commissioner R-074835-09/SR.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Worker concerned was employed as a Technician in Eircom from 1974 to 1998 and as a Technical Officer from 1998 to 2003.
In conjunction with his employment from the year 1994 to 2001 he achieved a Primary (Honours) Degree in IT and a Masters (Honours) Degree in Management of Operations. These courses were funded by Eircom who acknowledged that the courses were appropriate to his employment. These qualifications took seven years of his personal time to achieve. The courses were done on the understanding by the Worker that he would be able to utilise them within Eircom by contributing to the management process.
The Worker is in dispute with the Company in relation to his case for upgrading from Level 8 to Level 7 on a personal basis. It is the Workers' case that it is only at Level 7 that he could utilise his qualifications properly. The Worker made detailed written submissions through Eircom's Grievance Procedure but his case was rejected.
The Worker subsequently referred his case to a Rights Commissioner for investigation and recommendation. The Rights Commissioner, who found that the complaint was not well founded, rejected the claim. His recommendation issued on the 15th October, 2009 as follows:-
"Notwithstanding the above I am greatly impressed by the claimant's obvious commitment to the company and the personal efforts he has made to improve his knowledge and qualifications in ways which could benefit the employer and accordingly, I also recommend that the parties should explore in a meaningful fashion ways and means which would allow the employer to make full use of the claimant's skills, experience and educational qualifications and allow the claimant to meet his aspirations for upgrading, while remaining within the parameters of fair procedures and existing agreements."
On the 25th November, 2009 the Worker appealed the recommendation of the Rights Commissioner to the Labour Court in accordance with Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 30th June, 2010.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Worker maintains that at a briefing ,with the Change Manager, prior to an interview, he was told that 'the opportunity was always there for individuals to make a business case for promotion on a personal basis through their Union.' He contends that this has not been honoured.
2. The Worker contends that up until 2007 the approach by the Company was to give him as little work as possible so that he would be unable to make a case for promotion to Level 7.
3. The Worker maintains that there were no job offers from the Company that he did not accept. However where alternatives were offered by the Worker that Company turned them all down.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company strongly maintains that there is no basis or entitlement to up-grade, promote or increase the remuneration of the Worker.
2. The Company maintains that staff who have received funding by the Company in respect of third level education are simply not entitled to be promoted on the basis of that.
3. The Company contends that there is no basis for the Worker to be up-graded, neither by reference to his work record, experience and qualifications, nor by reference to his complaints regarding his career history since 2003.
DECISION:
The Court has carefully considered the extensive oral and written submissions in this case.
The Court notes that the Worker concerned feels very aggrieved at the manner in which he has been treated by his Employer. The issue referred to the Court relates to a claim that the Worker, by virtue of his academic qualifications, the financing of which was supported by the Company, was entitled to be put into a job that would enable him to make a business case for regrading to a higher level salary.
The Court, concurs with the findings of the Rights Commissioner and can see no basis on which the attainment of academic qualifications, the financing of which was supported by the Company, can confer any entitlement to preferential treatment on a worker over and above his or her colleagues who have not been so supported. Academic qualifications may enhance a candidate's prospects at interview but they should not confer additional entitlements as claimed in this case.
Accordingly, the Court upholds the Rights Commissioner's Recommendation and rejects the appeal.
The Court notes that there have been unintended but unhelpful delays and errors in the manner in which this Worker has been confirmed in a suitable post within the Company following his displacement through restructuring in 2003. Steps should be taken to ensure that such errors and delays are not repeated.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Brendan Hayes
7th July, 2010______________________
MG.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Madelon Geoghegan, Court Secretary.