FULL RECOMMENDATION
PARTIES : ROAD SAFETY AUTHORITY DIVISION :
SUBJECT: 1.Appeal Of Adjudication Officer Decision No. ADJ00030431, CA-00040681-001 A Labour Court hearing took place on 28 January 2022. DECISION: The Union on behalf of the Worker submitted that she had been disadvantaged when the Employer decided to train new entrants (like herself) to temporary post in regional locations. The training commenced September 2018. The Worker’s training commenced on the 5thNovember 2018 some two months later, and lasted for a seven-week period. The training was run on a regional basis and workers were assigned to the training based on their location and not their place on the competition panel. This resulted in applicants who had placed lower on the panel than this Worker completing their training before she completed hers. During the training period Workers are paid the appropriate rate and their seniority starts accruing from the first date of training. This became an important factor in 2020 when a number of permanent posts were filled on a seniority basis. The Worker was not offered a permanent post as she was not high enough up the seniority list. The Worker submits that if seniority was based on the persons place on the competition panel she would have qualified for a permanent post. The Worker submits alternatively that the training should have been done based on the Worker’s placing on the competition panel. It was her submission if that had happened, she and not someone else would have obtained a permanent position as she was placed higher than that person on the original panel. The Worker did not provide any contractual documentation or collective agreement to support her position and her Union Official confirmed that she had not processed her grievance through the internal grievance procedure. The Employer’s submission is that seniority commences when you start work. The training was provided on a regional basis as participants do not receive travel and subsistence for attending the training. The training lasts for seven weeks and if it was held in a central location the Worker’s would have to cover their own costs when attending. The Worker is still employed on a temporary contract and the Employer is in discussions with the Union about processes and procedures for the filling of future permanent vacancies that may arise. The Court having carefully read all the submissions and listened to the oral submissions on the day decides that the Worker’s claim fails. The appeal fails. The Decision of the Adjudication officer is upheld.
NOTE |
