FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : IARNROD EIREANN - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION NBRU DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Ms Cryan Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Filling of Existing & Future Vacancies
BACKGROUND:
2. The case before the Court concerns a claim by both Unions on behalf of its members in relation to the filling of vacancies within the Patrol Ganger, Mobile Ganger and Plate Layer grades of the Infrastructure Department. The Unions contend that traditionally all vacancies within these grades have been filled on the basis of seniority and assert that this should apply to the filling of vacancies going forward. Management disputes this and maintains that following a previous Labour Court Recommendation, the filling of both current and future vacancies should be done in an equal and fair manner by means of a merit based selection process.
The dispute could not be resolved at local level and was the subject of a Conciliation Conference under the auspices of the Labour Relations Commission. At Conciliation, a proposal was drawn up and was recommended for acceptance by all parties involved. However, the proposal was rejected by the Workers. As agreement was not reached, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on 19th July 2010, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 18th November 2010.
UNIONS' ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. Positions within the Infrastructure Department have historically been filled on the basis of seniority and this is the expectation that remains amongst staff within the Department.
2. The Unions reject the proposal of a merit based selection process on the grounds that there is a mistrust towards Management.
3.The Unions further contend that vacancies within the Department are currently filled on the basis of nepotism and friendship and not by means of a transparent and fair selection process.
EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The filling of vacancies on a seniority basis is unfair and could potentially be deemed to be in breach of Employment Equality Legislation.
2. Competency based systems have been in existence within the Company for more than ten years and have been used across all sectors of the Organisation with the exception of the Infrastructure Department.
3. Management strongly rejects the Unions' suggestions of a "Blue Eyed Boy" method of filling vacancies and contends that a merit based selection process is the most fair and transparent method of filling vacancies.
RECOMMENDATION:
The matter before the Court concerns the filling of existing and future vacancies within the Permanent Way Grades in the Infrastructure Department and the proposed competency based selection process.
The Unions seek the retention of a seniority-based system for selection purposes while the Company seek a selection system based on competency. The Court in Labour Court Recommendation No: 17200 has already issued a Recommendation stating that it
- “fully supports the Company's contention that the primary consideration in filling promotional positions and in making appointments to permanent posts should be the suitability of candidates as assessed through transparent and objective selection procedures. The Court does, however, believe that where candidates are equally suitable, seniority could be used as the deciding factor.”
Under the auspices of the Labour Relations Commission and following a number of protracted conciliation conferences a set of proposals regarding Per Way Selection dated 29th April 2010, were presented and recommended for acceptance by the parties. However, the Unions submitted that these proposals were not acceptable due to the perception that they failed to reach their objective of having a fair and equitable process, which would take cognisance of experience and seniority going forward. The problems they identified were the involvement of local management in the interview process and the lack of an adequate appeal process.
Having considered the submissions of all parties, the Court reiterates its position as outlined in Labour Court Recommendation No: 17200 and recommends the following:
1. The Labour Relations Commission proposals dated 29th April 2010 should be amended to include a provision to state that the HR management representative on the interview panel should be a person from outside the competition’s regional area.
2. The proposals should state that a review by the parties of the selection process should take place six months after the first competency-based appointment had been made, to review any problems associated with the process or its outcome.
With these amendments, the Court recommends that the proposals should be accepted by the parties and be put in place with immediate effect.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
24th November 2011______________________
SCDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Sharon Cahill, Court Secretary.