FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : AN POST - AND - A WORKER DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Ms Doyle Worker Member: Mr Shanahan |
1. Appeal of Rights Commissioner's Recommendation R-145871-IR-14/JW.
BACKGROUND:
2. The case before the Court concerns the Worker's appeal ofRights Commissioner's Recommendation R-145871-IR-14/JW.The dispute relates specifically to the Worker's claim that he has been deemed ineligible to apply forspecific vacancies despite fulfilling the required criteria for same. The Worker's issue was investigated and decided upon internally by the Monitoring Group, an adjudicating body set up on foot of a previous Labour Court Recommendation. Determinations of the Monitoring Group are final and are binding on both parties. There are no provisions within the Company/Union Collective Agreement to allow for external avenues of further appeal on issues determined by the Monitoring Group. The matter was referred to a Rights Commissioner for investigation and recommendation. On the 26th March, 2015 the Rights Commissioner issued his recommendation as follows:
"Based on the evidence presented at the hearing I find that this dispute was fully investigated in line with the agreed Industrial Relations process which is in place in the Organisation. I also find that the Monitoring Group issued two Determinations in relation to the Claimant's complaint. I find that the parties are bound by the Decision/Determination of the Monitoring Group in line with the agreed Industrial Relations Agreements which are in place within the Organisation.
I recommend that the complaint is not well-founded and therefore fails".
On the 27th April, 2015, the Worker appealed the Rights Commissioner's Recommendation to the Labour Court in accordance with Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Courthearing took place on 2nd June, 2015.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Worker disagrees with the determinations of the Monitoring Group and is seeking to further appeal the outcome of its previous investigations.
EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Employer contends that the Worker's issue has been fully investigated and decided upon by the Monitoring Group whose determinations are final and binding on both parties.
DECISION:
It is accepted that the determinations of the An Post internal arbitration panel (known as the Monitoring Group) are final and binding. That arises from the terms under which the Monitoring Group was established on foot of a collective agreement between the Company and the Trade Union representing its staff. The Claimant is a member of that Union.
The Court has consistently upheld and applied the terms of collective agreements in so far as they relate to matters coming before the Court. In this instance the clear intention of the parties to the collective agreement was that the outcome of referrals to the Monitoring Group would be final and binding on all parties. The Court must give effect to that intention.
The dispute now before the Court was referred to the Monitoring Group and was definitively dealt with by the Group in its determination. In these circumstances the Court must hold that the Claimant should accept the finality of that determination.
The Court affirms the Recommendation of the Rights Commissioner and the appeal is disallowed.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
5th June 2015______________________
SCChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Sharon Cahill, Court Secretary.