INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
TRALEE URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL
- AND -
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
Chairman: Ms Jenkinson
Employer Member: Mr Pierce
Worker Member: Mr. Somers
1. Aappeal against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation IR 205/00/Mr
2. Tralee Urban District Council invited applications for the position of relief supervisor. From these applications a panel was set up following a competitive interview. The Union states that the number of Supervisors on the Community Employment Schemes operated by Tralee U.D.C. had been reduced from two to one. A dispute arose as to who should provide the relief cover for the remaining Supervisor. The choice was between the former Supervisor who had reverted to her former post, and who had acted as a temporary Supervisor for eleven months or one of the temporary reliefs from the panel.
The Council claims that it put forward a number of proposals to try and resolve the dispute but to no avail.
The dispute was the subject of a Rights Commissioner's hearing which took place on the 12th April, 2000. The following is the Rights Commissioner's Recommendation:-
" In the circumstances, I recommend that Tralee U.D.C. and SIPTU should agree to allow the former temporary Supervisorand one of the temporary reliefs to alternate in providing relief until the current scheme ends, presumably towards the end of this year. A competition open to all eligible candidates should be held before the scheme ends with a view to providing relief for the supervisor on any further scheme."
The Union appealed the Recommendation to the Labour Court on the 27th July, 2000 in accordance with Section 13 (9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 25th October, 2000.
3. 1. The members on the panel should have first choice of any relief work which becomes available.
2. The workers do not accept that the relief Supervisor's position should rotate bteween those on the panel and the former temporary Supervisor.
3. The members argue that they sat for a separate interview for the relief post and that the Council is not entitled to deny them full access to that position.
4. The Rights Commissioner's Recommendation states that one of the reliefs on the panel should alternate with the former temporary supervisor. The members are against this recommendation.
4. 1. The proposal to share the relief work between the former temporary supervisor and those on the panel was accepted by the Council.
2. FAS has notified the Council that the current scheme will end with effect from the 10th November, 2000. There is no indication that there will be a futher scheme.
3. Should the Council be notified of a new Community Employment Scheme it is proposed to hold a competition open to all eligible candidates to provide the necessary relief cover.
The Court is of the view that this dispute has arisen due to a mishandling of the relief competition by the
UDC and a lack of clarity given to the temporary supervisor on the termination of her old contract. This difficulty has arisen due to the fact that she was automatically given the position of relief supervisor in the new scheme, ahead of those who had successfully completed the competition and were ranked first and second for relief. This unclear position lead to confusion and resentment on behalf of those so ranked.
The Court recommends that the recommendation of the Rights Commissioner should be upheld, and applied accordingly.
The Court so decides.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
9th November, 2000______________________
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Larry Wisely, Court Secretary.