FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : NUIG (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Ms Doyle Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Promotion
BACKGROUND:
2. This case concerns a dispute between the National University of Ireland Galway (NUIG) and SIPTU in relation to a promotional post (Chargehand) that the Union claims was promised to the worker for the additional work carried out. The worker is employed in the Gardening section and has for many years marked out and lined football pitches prior to matches taking place. The Union contends that management promised the worker that it would upgrade him to the chargehand post which carries a pay differential of 7.5% yet it ultimately offered the role to someone else.
Management's position is that it acknowledges the additional duties carried out by the worker but it was not within its gift to upgrade him to a senior post without holding an open and transparent competition. It contends that it did hold such a competition which has a requirement for an Irish Language proficiency test and as the worker did not take the proficiency test, he was not eligible for the post.
The worker referred the dispute to the Labour Court on 9th June 2009 in accordance with Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969 and agreed to be bound by the Court's Recommendation. A Labour Court hearing took place on 29th September, 2010.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3 1 The worker has for many years carried out duties over and above his current grade. When these issues were raised with management a commitment was given to the worker that it would be "sorted out" and that he would be "looked after." Management subsequently failed to live up to its commitments and the chargehand position was subsequently awarded to another staff member.
2 The worker contends that he was told that " he didnt have to do the Irish Proficiency test". As a fluent native speaker, the worker took this to mean that there was no requirement on him to take the test and that it would not affect his chances of promotion.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4 1 Management did not commit to upgrade the worker to the Chargehand position. All such promotions must be the subject of fair competition and an interview process. Management may well have committed to look into the situation and attempt to resolve the issue at hand but no further commitments were given.
2 The Irish Proficiency test was part of the recruitment process at the time of the appointment. If the worker had taken the test he may well have been promoted to the post but as he didnt take the test, he was not eligible for the promotion.
RECOMMENDATION:
Having regard to all the circumstances of this case the Court cannot identify a basis upon which it could recommend concession of the Union’s claim.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
26th October 2010______________________
AHChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Andrew Heavey, Court Secretary.