FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : NUI GALWAY (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - (REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Ms Cryan Worker Member: Ms Tanham |
1. Appeal of Rights Commissioner Recommendation No: r-152611-Ir-14/MH
BACKGROUND:
2. This case is an appeal by the worker of Rights Commissioner Recommendation No: r-152611-Ir-14/MH. The issue concerns the Fees Concession Scheme previously in place in the University The Union contends that the worker applied to avail of the concession scheme in respect of her Daughter's attendance at NUIG but was refused access to the Scheme. Management's position is that the scheme does not apply to staff who were made permanent after 1st October 1992. It contends that as the worker was not made permanent until 1994, she does not meet the eligibility requirements for access to the Scheme.
The matter was referred to a Rights Commissioner for investigation. A Recommendation issued on the 27th May 2015 and did not find in favour of the worker's claim. On the 8th June 2015 the Union appealed the Rights Commissioner's Recommendation in accordance with Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act,1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on 28th October 2015.
UNION'S ARGUMENT:
3 1 The worker is seeking access to the Scheme on the basis that she has been employed by the University since 1992. It is not accepted that the workers previous temporary status in the employment should deny her access to the Scheme. It was her clear understanding that as a long serving staff member she could apply to avail of the benefits of the Scheme.
MANAGEMENT'S ARGUMENT:
4 1 Management has consistently applied the rules of the scheme to all staff members. The worker simply did not meet the eligibility criteria as she was not appointed to a permanent post prior to the 1st October 1992.
DECISION:
In this case the net question that arises is whether the University applied the policy in issue differently in the case of the Claimant than in the case of others whose circumstances were similar.
All of the information before the Court indicates the policy has applied consistently since its introduction so as to exclude those appointed to permanent posts after 1stOctober 1992. It follows that the position taken by the University in this case is no different to that which it took in the case of others.
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
Kevin Duffy
13th November 2015______________________
AHChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Andrew Heavey, Court Secretary.