INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
KILTIMAGH DEVELOPMENT GROUP LIMITED
- AND -
(RERESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION)
Chairman: Mr Duffy
Employer Member: Mr McHenry
Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu
1. Appeal against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation 500/98.
2. The worker commenced employment as an Assistant Supervisor on FÁS Scheme 5 on the 2nd of June, 1997. The scheme concluded on the 15th of May, 1998. The Company wrote to the worker on the 20th of April, 1998, stating that it would be advertising the posts of Assistant Supervisor and Supervisor by public notice for FÁS Scheme 6. The letter also stated that it would welcome an application from the worker.
The worker wrote to the Company requesting an application for the post of Assistant Supervisor. She was told that there was a temporary problem but that interviews would take place. In the event, the worker was not interviewed and the position of Assistant Supervisor went to another person.
The Union believed that the worker was fully qualified for the post and should have been appointed. It referred the case to the Rights Commissioner's service and a hearing took place on the 22nd of October, 1998. The Company did not attend the hearing. The following is the Rights Commissioner's recommendation:
"I recommend that the Company offer and the worker accepts £5,000
in settlement of this dispute."
The Company appealed the recommendation to the Labour Court on the 22nd of December, 1998, in accordance with Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 21st of April, 1999, in Castlebar, the earliest date suitable to the parties.
3. 1. The Company wrote to the worker on the 20th of April, 1998, thanking her for her "tremendous input" into FÁS Scheme 5.
2. The Company stated that it would welcome an application from the worker for the post of Assistant Supervisor, and committed itself to interviewing her.
3. The worker was the most obviously suitable person for the job, having already done the work for the previous year, but she was not even given an interview.
4. 1. The Company was not present at the Rights Commissioner's hearing as the person dealing with the case was unavailable for the date set. The Company understood that another date would be set but this did not happen.
2. The worker did not receive a contract of employment so it could not be renewable, as the Union claims.
3. The worker was not told that she would be interviewed for the job. She was told that she could apply for an interview.
4. The Company believes that the person it appointed to the post has vindicated its decision.
Having considered the submissions of the parties, the Court is satisfied the claimant had a legitimate expectation of continued employment, subject to satisfactory service and the funding for the project on which she was engaged being renewed. The funding was renewed, and there is nothing to suggest that the claimant’s service was other than satisfactory.
The Court finds no basis on which it should interfere with the conclusions and recommendations of the Rights Commissioner. The Rights Commissioner’s recommendation is confirmed, and the appeal is disallowed.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
13th May, 1999______________________
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Ciaran O'Neill, Court Secretary.