LCR22558

FULL RECOMMENDATION

SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969

PARTIES :

ROAD SAFETY AUTHORITY
(REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION)

- AND -

A WORKER
(REPRESENTED BY FÓRSA)

DIVISION :

SUBJECT:

1. Appeal Of Adjudication Officer Decision No. ADJ00030431, CA-00040681-001

BACKGROUND:

2. The Worker appealed the Adjudication Officer’s Recommendation to the Labour Court on 29 October 2021 in accordance with Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969.

On 23 September 2021 the Adjudication Officer issued the following Recommendation:-

“I do not recommend any recompense to the employee.”

A Labour Court hearing took place on 28 January 2022.

DECISION :

This is an appeal by a Worker of the Decision of an Adjudication Officer. The issues in dispute between the parties are five grievances that the Worker has raised. The Adjudication Officer did not recommend concession of the Worker’s claim.

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 5^th November 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

Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Orla Collender, Court Secretary.