FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : TEAGASC - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Employer Failed To Implement Agreed Procedures In Selection For A Post Of Responsibility
BACKGROUND:
2. The issue before the Court concerns a claim by the Union that the Employer failed to implement agreed procedures in the selection process for a Post of Responsibility (POR). The Worker concerned has been with the employer since 1977. The Teagasc Advisory Service was restructured in 2007 and as a result of this 112 additional Posts of Responsibility was recommended by an independent evaluator. Agreement was reached between the Employer and Union on how these posts would be filled. The Worker concerned made applications for four posts. He was unsuccessful in all applications and appealed the decision on a number of issues. There was three internal appeal hearings. It is the Union's claim that the Worker has been treated unfairly and the original decision made by the Director of Teagasc at the Third stage Internal appeal should stand and that the Worker should be appointed to a post of responsibility. The Company refute this claim
On the 18th March, 2010, the Union (on behalf of the Worker) submitted a complaint to the Labour Court in accordance with Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. The Worker agrees to be bound by the Court's Recommendation.
A Labour Court hearing took place on 21st July, 2010. The following is the Court's Recommendation:
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1 The Worker initiated the grievance in October 2007. It took until September, 2009 to deliver a final outcome despite the Grievance Procedure guidelines requiring a much shorter timeframe. The agreement to create additional posts, the selection process and the lodging of the appeal pre-date the Government moratorium by a year and a half.
2 There were five applications for five posts by the closing date for applications. A further 6 applications were submitted after this date. All were called before the Selection Board. The Worker's marks were fractionally below the qualifying mark for each post.
3 At the third stage of appeal hearing, the Director of Teagasc accepted the admission of candidates after the closing date was incorrect and accepted the closeness of the worker's marks to those of the successful candidate was concerning in the selection process. The Director conveyed a decision to the Worker that he should be appointed to a Post of Responsibility. The fact that he reversed his decision in the report of the appeal is unacceptable.
EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1 At the third stage appeal hearing the Director of Teagasc expressed the view that the Worker should be awarded a POR if possible within the context of the current moratorium. He reached this conclusion as the Worker placed second in all four applications he made by the narrowest of margins.
2 The Director of Teagasc fully accepted that the interview process and marking process were conducted with the utmost probity.
3 It is Teagasc's position that the only avenue open to the organisation, given the constraints of the Government Moratorium is that the Worker be reinterviewed for a POR and if successful appointed when the next fillable vacancy arises as recommended by the Director of Teagasc.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court is satisfied that the Union's recollection of what occurred at the stage 3 appeal hearing is substantially correct. Accordingly the Court accepts that the Director made an unconditional offer to appoint the Claimant to a POR post and that the Claimant accepted that offer.
In these circumstances the Court recommends that the offer as made be honoured.
This recommendation is made having regard to the facts of this case and it is not intended to have any precedent value for any other case. Accordingly it should not be quoted or relied upon in any other case in either an internal appeal or before a third party.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
30th July, 2010______________________
DNChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to David P Noonan, Court Secretary.