FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : AN POST - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY O ' MARA GERAGHTY MC COURT SOLICITORS) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Hayes Employer Member: Ms Cryan Worker Member: Mr McCarthy |
1. Investigation of Complaint
BACKGROUND:
2. This case concerns a dispute between the worker and An Post in relation to seniority. The worker is claiming that she should have retained her seniority having applied for and been successful in obtaining a post in the Company's Naas office. Management's position is that the matter has already been considered by the Monitoring Group which was established on foot of a previous Labour Court Recommendation (LCR18260 refers) and has made a determination on the issue of the worker's seniority. Management contends that as the matter has already been dealt with in compliance with established procedures, there is no requirement to have the matter recommended on by the Labour Court.
As the dispute was not resolved at local level the matter was referred to the Labour Court in accordance with Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. The worker agreed to be bound by the Court's Recommendation. A Labour Court hearing took place on 3rd July 2014
WORKER'S ARGUMENT:
3 1 It is clear to the worker that she should have retained her seniority having been successful in the duty competition for the post in question. If the worker had been aware that taking up the position would result in a loss of seniority in the new location, she would never had applied for the position. It is accepted that voluntary transfers result in a loss of seniority but this was an entirely different situation.
MANAGEMENT'S ARGUMENT:
4 1 This matter has already been dealt with by the Monitoring Group and its determination issued stating that the worker's seniority should be based on the point in time that the she was assigned to the Naas office. As the appropriate group for dealing with such issues has already heard the case and issued its decision, a Labour Court Recommendation is not required.
RECOMMENDATION:
Having considered the written and oral submissions of both parties to this dispute the Court finds as follows:-
The Claimant asserts that her seniority within An Post was not affected by her decision to move to the Naas Office as part of the Initial Staffing Process for the Regional Office structure following the completion of the Clerical & Administrative Area Work Practice Change Agreement 2007.
Management asserts that the matter was considered by the Monitoring Group established under the terms of that Agreement to adjudicate on matters of dispute arising out of that Agreement and that it decided that the Claimant did not carry her seniority with her to the new location.
The Court has examined the correspondence submitted by both sides and can find no evidence that the matter has been decided by the Monitoring Committee. That Committee, in a letter dated 13th March 2014, states-
"It is long established practice in An Post that employees transferring between areas are placed at the next point on the seniority list of the receiving office. The C & A Agreement did not change this."
It then goes on to state " Ms Power's seniority should be based on the point in time at which she was assigned to Naas".
The Court finds that the Monitoring Committee in that letter effectively declares that the C & A Agreement did not change the long established practice in An Post. At that point it has discharged its authority under the Agreement. It has no authority under that Agreement to determine the long standing practice in An Post regarding employees transferring between areas. That is a matter for the Management and Unions to determine in the context of any rules, regulations and agreements in place and in the context of any contractual or statutory rights enjoyed by the Claimant.
The Court finds that the matter in dispute has not been considered in this context by either the Management or the Claimant or the Trade Unions involved.
Accordingly, the Court recommends that the relevant parties engage with a view to establishing the "long standing practice" that applies in the circumstances that present in this case.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Brendan Hayes
11th August 2014______________________
AHDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Andrew Heavey, Court Secretary.