FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : DUBLIN AIRPORT AUTHORITY - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Ms Cryan Worker Member: Mr Shanahan |
1. Filling of a vacancy.
BACKGROUND:
2. This dispute arose from the manner in which the Employer filled a temporary vacancy in the Airport Identification Centre (AIC). This dispute could not be resolved at local level and was the subject of a Conciliation Conference under the auspices of the Labour Relations Commission. As agreement was not reached, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 27th February, 2013, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 7th June, 2012.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3 1 This AIC work has always been carried out by staff of the Airport Police Fire Service (APFS).
2 AIC work provides the only opportunity for APFS staff to leave shift work.
3 The Employer has ignored its own procedures for the filling a vacancy.
EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:
4 1 The Employer's preference is to use redeployment to retain staff in employment.
2 The position concerned was a temporary vacancy.
3. The position is a clerical administrative role.
RECOMMENDATION:
The matter before the Court concerns the filling of a temporary position within the Airport Identification Centre (AIC) in February 2013. The Union submitted to the Court that management had breached its own procedures under the “Cost Recovery Plan” by not advertising the role in accordance with its procedures which states:-
- An abbreviated SVN [staff vacancy notice] will be placed on notice boards for one week and normal recruitment screening criteria will apply. Vacancies will be open to all employees with an extra weighting applying to those on the DAA redeployment panel.
Management stated that the reason it did not issue an abbreviated SVN in this case was due to the fact that no vacancy existed at the time, however, in an effort to find suitable employment the Company identified the AIC area as an area where a position could be found for extra resources on a temporary basis.
Having considered the position of both parties, the Court finds that in the circumstances of this case the position filled by the re-deployed employee on a temporary basis should have been advertised in accordance with the above quoted procedure with the employee being given “an extra weighting”.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
10th June, 2013______________________
JMcCDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Jonathan McCabe, Court Secretary.