FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : UCD - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Ms Doyle Worker Member: Mr Shanahan |
1. Appeal of Rights Commissioner Recommendation r-106926-ir-11/TB.
BACKGROUND:
2. This is an appeal by the employer of Rights Commissioner's Recommendation No: r-106926-ir-11/TB. The issue concerns an employee of UCD and whether she is sufficiently qualified to be appointed to the post of College Lecturer. This issue was previously referred to a Rights Commissioner for investigation. As an interim solution, an independent evaluation process took place with agreed terms of reference and a draft report from the reviewer suggested that she was qualified to beappointedto the Lecturer grade. There was subsequently further information submitted by the College and the reviewers final report suggested that the worker was qualified tocompetefor the role of College Lecturer. The current dispute concerns whether the worker should be appointed to the College Lecturer Grade or to compete for such appointment at the next available opportunity.
The Rights Commissioner issued his Recommendation on 23rd November 2011 and recommended that the claimant be reassigned as a College lecturer from the date on which she became qualified for the post (Autumn 2010). On the 7th December, 2011, the employer appealed the Rights Commissioner's Recommendation in accordance with Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969.
A Labour Court hearing took place on 27th March, 2012.
UNION'S ARGUMENT:
3. 1. The worker became sufficiently qualified to be appointed as a College Lecturer in Autumn 2010 as is clearly stated in the IPC report and should be acknowledged by the employer. It is the Union's clear understanding that the worker should be appointed retrospectively to that date.
EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENT:
4. 1. The worker clearly became qualified to compete for the position of College Lecturer as is referred in the final report on the issue. It is not simply a matter of appointment as is being claimed by the Union.
DECISION:
This dispute has a long and somewhat complex history. The Claimant first asserted an entitlement to be afforded the status and conditions of a College Lecturer in 2007. The College agreed to engage in a process, the ultimate outcome of which was the Rights Commissioner's recommendation now under appeal. In the Court's view that recommendation follows logically from the earlier recommendations which both parties had accepted. Having committed itself to this process it seems reasonable that the College should now accept the outcome identified by the Rights Commissioner.
In these circumstances the Court does not believe that a basis exists upon which it could set the Rights Commissioner's recommendation aside.
This decision is based on the peculiar circumstances of this case. It is not intended to have any precedential value and it should not be relied upon or quoted in any other case arising in this employment or elsewhere. On that basis the College's appeal is disallowed.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
17th April, 2012.______________________
AH.Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Andrew Heavey, Court Secretary.