FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : COILLTE TEORANTA - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY IRISH MUNICIPAL, PUBLIC AND CIVIL TRADE UNION) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Hayes Employer Member: Ms Doyle Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Appeal of Rights Commissioner Recommendation R-105350-Ir-11/TB.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker has been employed by Coillte (formerly Forest Service) since 1979. Coillte was established in 1988 with responsibility for managing State forestry and associated businesses. It is organised into three divisions with three support functions - Coillte Forest, Coillte Enterprise and Coillte Panel Products. In 2005 Coillte decided to create a new post of Farm Partnership Manager. The intention was that the new role would be advertised and the worker, who had been involved in the area for some time, believed that he had a very good chance of being appointed to the role. A job evaluation of the role was undertaken and it was rated at Level 3, the same grade as the worker concerned (there was disagreement between the parties as to whether the new role was at Level 2 or 3). In the event the role was not advertised and it was given to another employee who was at Level 2, a higher grade . The worker claims that he raised the issue of his non-appointment with management on a number of occasions although it was not until 2010 that the Union raised it formally with Coillte. The dispute was referred to a Rights Commissioner whose recommendation was as follows:
"While acknowledging that the circumstances of the case could be interpreted as unfair to the claimant, and that the Company did not observe best practice in the manner in which it dealt with it, I cannot see that it would be fair or reasonable at this remove to try and correct the situation as suggested by the Union".
I recommend that the claimant be given the opportunity to be considered for any level 2 job that becomes available and for which he is considered suitable".
The worker appealed the recommendation to the Labour Court on the 30th September, 2011, in accordance with Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 5th January, 2012.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The worker was centrally involved in the work that was evaluated for the new role and was praised by his manager for his performance. He was the obvious choice to fill the post. The job was not advertised as promised and was given to a Level 2 employee whom the worker concerned spent 6 months training. The worker still does not understand why this happened.
2. The worker raised the issue on a number of occasions with management (details supplied to the Court), albeit on an informal basis as he was worried about risking his job.
COILLTE'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. Coillte has held a number of meetings with the parties to try to resolve the issue but, particularly after a time lapse of 6 years, this has not been successful.
2. The worker was advised in 2005 that he could matters further through the formal, agreed, Grievance Procedure but chose not to do so.
3. The role in 2005 was a new one and was evaluated and deemed to be Level 3. This was confirmed in 2011 by the person who made the evaluation.
DECISION:
The Court has carefully considered the extensive written and oral submissions of both parties in this case.
Taking all factors into account the Court rejects the appeal and upholds the Rights Commissioner's Recommendation.
The Court so decides.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Brendan Hayes
16th January, 2012______________________
CONChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Ciaran O'Neill, Court Secretary.