FULL RECOMMENDATION
SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : AN POST - AND - A WORKER DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Haugh Employer Member: Mr Marie Worker Member: Mr McCarthy |
1. Seniority
BACKGROUND:
2. This dispute concerns the Worker's claim that he has lost out on seniority. The Worker referred this case to the Labour Court on 11th August, 2016 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 19th October, 2016.
WORKERS ARGUMENTS:
3.1.The worker says that he has been treated unfairly by the application of various agreements.
2. The Company has failed to clarify the position as to which agreement the worker comes under.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4.1. The Company asserts that the worker has not been treated unjustly, in any way through the application of the various agreements.
2. The Company has acted in accordance with the agreed process through dialogue with the Union.
RECOMMENDATION:
Dispute
The subject matter of the within dispute relates to the Claimant’s seniority within the Respondent’s Portlaoise Mail Centre. Prior to 2005, the Claimant was assigned to the SDS parcels service. This service was assimilated back into the Respondent in 2005.
The closure of SDS and its re-assimilation were the subject of a very comprehensive Labour Court Recommendation in 2005 (LCR18097). Thereafter, the Respondent and the Communication Workers’ Union (CWU), of which the Claimant is a member, formed a Joint Implementation Group to oversee the implementation of the Court’s Recommendation. The Joint Implementation Group operates through a Central Steering Group (CSG) which comprises four members of Management of the CWU. The Labour Court also appointed a Monitoring Group to facilitate the re-assimilation process and to deal with associated issues.
The Monitoring Group recommended, in April 2013, that a review should be conducted of the seniority arrangements that should apply in circumstances when an existing part-time employee attains a full-time post. The Monitoring Group made the following determination:
•“Total length of part-time service (i.e. hours worked) should be calculated.•This should be divided by 37.5 to calculate a pro-rata ‘reckonable full-time service’.
•The ‘reckonable full-time service’ should then be used to identify at which point in the full-time seniority list the former part-time employee should be assimilated.”
Recommendation
Having considered the Parties’ written and oral submissions, the Court is satisfied that the Claimant is subject to the assimilation agreement entered into by the Respondent and the CWU. The Claimant’s seniority, therefore, falls to be determined having regard to the effect of any determinations made by the Monitoring Group exercising its functions in accordance with the assimilation agreement. It is clear to the Court that Respondent has acted in accordance with the agreed processes in conjunction with the CWU. The Complainant’s case is not well founded and the appeal fails.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Alan Haugh
17 November, 2016______________________
CCDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Ceola Cronin, Court Secretary.