FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : BUS EIREANN - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY CALLAN TANSEY SOLICITORS) DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Ms Cryan Worker Member: Mr Shanahan |
1. Failure to appoint as Permanent Driver.
BACKGROUND:
2. This dispute concerns the Worker's claim that he should have been appointed as a Permanent Driver. The Worker referred this case to the Labour Court on 9th February, 2012, in accordance with Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969, and agreed to be bound by the Court's Recommendation. A Labour Court hearing took place on 15th February, 2012.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. It was a custom and practice at that time that a Driver with one year's uninterrupted service was automatically entitled to be appointed as a Permanent Driver.
2. The Worker commenced as a Driver on 18th May, 2007 and should have been appointed as a Permanent Driver on 19th May, 2008.
3.The Worker should be appointed as a Permanent Driver and paid the relevant back money, with effect from 19th May, 2008.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company filled Permanent Driver vacancies in accordance with existing Company / Union agreements.
2. The Worker is currently in second place on the panel created to fill Permanent Driver vacancies.
- 3. The Worker will, therefore, be appointed as a Permanent Driver in the near future.
RECOMMENDATION:
The claim before the Court was brought under Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. The Claimant alleged that the Company’s failure to appoint him to a permanent driver position after he had been in the role for a period of one year was a breach of custom and practice.
The Company stated that the filling of driver positions was the subject of a an agreement between the Company and NBRU/SIPTU signed in 2000 and amended in 2004. The agreement provided for successful candidates to be appointed to a panel from which permanent appointments are made when driver vacancies arise.
The Claimant was appointed to the panel in May 2007 and he is now placed number two on the panel. The Company stated that it anticipated that the Claimant would be appointed into a permanent driver position by the end of the year.
The Court is satisfied that the treatment of the Claimant has been in accordance with the 2000 Agreement, as amended in 2004 and accordingly finds that there is no merit in the claim.
The Court notes that the Company committed to investigate the reasons for the non-payment of the Driver’s rate of pay for a period of approximately five weeks from 18thMay 2007, when he was carrying out driving duties.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
9th July, 2012______________________
JMcCDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Jonathan McCabe, Court Secretary.