INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004
SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
DUBLIN STEVEDORES LTD
(REPRESENTED BY THOMAS BARRY & CO SOLICITORS)
- AND -
(REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION)
Chairman: Mr Duffy
Employer Member: Mr Doherty
Worker Member: Mr O'Neill
1. Appeal Against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation IR21137/04/TB
2. The case before the Court concerns a dispute between SIPTU and Dublin Stevedores Limited in relation to a former casual employee of the Company who failed to secure a full time position with the Company. The Union (on behalf of the worker) is claiming that the interview process was flawed in that no scoring of the candidates was provided and no records were kept and is seeking appropriate compensation. It is also claiming that its member was the most qualified for the position but was denied because the successful candidate was related to one of the "decision makers." at the interview.
The dispute was not resolved at local level and was referred to a Rights Commissioner for invesigation and Recommendation. His Recommendation issued on 11th May 2005 and did not find in favour of the claimant.
On the 8th June 2005, the employee appealed the Rights Commissioners Recommendation in accordance with Section 13(9) of Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court Hearing took place on 19th January 2006.
3. 1. The Claimant was highly qualified to carry out the required tasks. The interview was flawed and favoured a less qualified candidate on the basis that he was related to one of the decision makers at interview.
2. Another flaw in the process was that no markings on the interview were available nor were any records available.
3. The Union is seeking payment of the appropriate compensation on the basis that the employee was treated unfavourably by the Company and has since left their employment.
4. 1. All applications were treated equally for the position with the best candidate being given the job.
2. The successful candidate was not related to one of the decision makers on the interview panel.
3. The former employee accepted voluntary redundancy and received a payment in full and final settlement of all outstanding claims.
The Court has carefully considered the submissions of the parties to this appeal.
Whilst the selection process may have been unsatisfactory in that the Company failed to retain interview notes or marking records, no tangible evidence has been adduced to indicate that the outcome of the process was irrational or unfair. Neither is there evidence that the Claimants application was treated less seriously than those of other applicants.
In these circumstances the Court can see no basis upon which it could interfere with the Recommendation of the Rights Commissioner. Accordingly the Recommendation of the Rights Commissioner is affirmed and the appeal is disallowed.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
26th January 2006______________________
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Andrew Heavey, Court Secretary.