FULL RECOMMENDATION
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : HENRY DENNY & SONS LIMITED (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - WORKERS (REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION) DIVISION :
SUBJECT: 1.Non-Compliance with Agreement Lab Position 1. The Employer does not accept that it was in breach of the agreement in this instance of what should be treated as an individual case rather than a collective issue. 2. The Employer states it remains committed to the agreement and consistently relies on the principle of all things being equal. 3. The Employer respectfully requests that the Court find in its favour and reject the Union claim. RECOMMENDATION: The issue in dispute between the parties arises from the manner of the filling of a vacant position in the Central Microbiological Laboratory. The dispute is in respect of whether or not the Employer breached the collective agreement which sets out the procedure for filling such posts. Union position In February 2020 a vacant position in the Central Microbiological Laboratory was advertised. Five workers from within the Laboratory section applied for the role. Their service at the time of the competition ranged from 2/3 years to 26 years’ service. It is the Union submission that in previous competitions significant weighing was given to seniority resulting in the most senior person being appointed. It was their submission that in some cases that person would not have had experience working in the particular Laboratory that they got the job in. It is the Union position that everyone was surprised when the most senior member of staff did not get the job. The collective agreement provided for the most senior person to get the post and management did not follow the agreement. It is the Union’s submission that this was an error on behalf of the Employer. Employer’s position It is the Employer’s position that the process used to fill the vacant post was an open and transparent process. While seniority can have a role to play in the recruitment process it does not, as suggested by the Union carry significant weighting. The Employer drew the Court’s attention to the relevant extract from the collective agreement which they included in their submission. This section stated “Appointments will be based on suitability of the applicant to do the job as assessed by Management. The following are some of the criteria used in selecting a suitable applicant;- Education/ Qualification/Experience/ Seniority.” It is the Employer submission that all things being equal seniority is a factor. However, in this case the successful candidate had direct experience in the Central Microbiological Laboratory whereas the most senior candidate did not. Discussion The Court notes that the Union accepted that the extracts form the collective agreement contained in the Employer’s submission were an accurate reflection of the agreement. The Court having considered the submissions of the parties and the extracts of the collective agreement made available to it, finds that the Employer did not act contrary to the collective agreement. On that basis the Court finds there was not a breach of the collective agreement and therefore the Union claim must fail. The Court so recommends.
NOTE Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Therese Hickey, Court Secretary. |
