FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : BORD NA MONA - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Hayes Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Mr Shanahan |
1. Appeal of Recommendation of a Rights Commissioner's Decision r-140824-ir-13/EH.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Claimant is seeking to be made permanent in accordance with the terms of an agreement between the Company and SIPTU. The Employer is rejecting this claim on the grounds that he does not meet the requirements for appointment to a permanent post set out in the Agreement. This dispute was referred to a Rights Commissioner for investigation and recommendation. On the 2nd May, 2014 the Rights Commissioner issued the following Recommendation:-
- "I recommend that the Company reviews its posting of advertisements on internal notice boards to ensure consistency.
I recommend that [The Worker] meets with HR to clearly state the type of positions that he may have an interest in the future.
I recommend that he regularly checks the intranet now that he has access to the net.
I recommend that [The Worker] takes responsibility for his own applications and if he fails to apply then he has no grievance in future."
3. 1. The Worker claims that his work in the relevant qualifying years entitled him to be appointed to a permanent position in accordance with the terms of the union management agreement.
2. The Worker applied for advertised permanent positions in the Company as he became aware of them. However he worked in an area where there was little or no access to the Company Intranet and the posting of advertisements for vacant positions was imperfect. He therefore believed he was making every effort to secure permanent employment.
3.The advertisement of vacancies for permanent positions is flawed in that it does not afford outdoor seasonal staff with adequate access to information on vacancies within the company.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Worker is being treated no differently than other employees who apply for permanent positions. He was considered for appointment under the Union Management Agreement but did not meet the qualifying criteria contained therein.
2. The Company's recruitment procedure is open, transparent. All posts are advertised both on the Company Intranet and on all relevant notice boards. The Company received applications for vacant positions from colleagues of the Claimant who worked the Claimant.
It is clear therefore that the notice of the vacancies were placed on the relevant notice boards. The Company further argues that the Claimant applied for a number of positions but other candidates were adjudged better qualified for appointment from each of those competitions. As the number of jobs on offer was quite small and the number of applicants was very large the great majority of candidates, including the Claimant, were not successful in any of the competitions.
3. Due to the seasonal nature of the Company's peat production operation a large number of production related jobs are and must of their nature remain, seasonal.
DECISION:
Having carefully considered the submissions of both parties to this dispute the Court, taking into account the unique history of the Claimant’s employment with the Company, finds that he met the criteria set out in the agreement concluded between SIPTU and the Company on 8 July 2008 and is accordingly entitled to be appointed to a permanent position in the Company.
The Court so decides.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Brendan Hayes
CO'R______________________
18 November, 2014Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Clodagh O'Reilly, Court Secretary.