INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
SOUTH DUBLIN COUNTY COUNCIL (SDCC)
- AND -
IRISH MUNICIPAL, PUBLIC AND CIVIL TRADE UNION
Chairman: Mr Foley
Employer Member: Mr Marie
Worker Member: Ms O'Donnell
1. Appointment process from a panel.
2. This dispute could not be resolved at local level and was the subject of a Conciliation Conference under the auspices of the Workplace Relations Commission. As agreement was not reached, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 24 June 2016 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990.
A Labour Court hearing took place on the 10 August 2016.
3. 1. Management created an expectation that vacancies would be filled from the panel which was announced following a confined competition.
2. Employees took management’s word and actions in good faith.
3. Management gave no reason why they would not continue an established panel to fill vacancies.
4. 1. The confined competition was to fill posts that were filled in an acting capacity and which were agreed in the workforce plan in September 2014.
2. It was never envisaged that the process would be used to fill subsequent vacancies that arose.
3. The agreed process has been implemented correctly.
The Court has considered in detail the written and oral submissions of the parties.
The Trade Union has confirmed to the Court at its hearing that no contention is made that the Council is in breach of the agreement reached in 2014.
The Union submitted to the Court that the Council subsequently created an expectation that the confined competition instituted for the purposes of implementing the 2014 agreement to fill the vacancies identified as part of that agreement would be used for other purposes. Specifically that the Council would use the panel arising from that confined competition to fill other vacancies which might arise and which would, in the normal way and by agreement, be filled by way of open competition.
The Court is satisfied that the process which led to the 2014 agreement was such as to ensure that there was no lack of clarity as to why and for what purpose the confined competition at issue in this case was instituted. The Court cannot accept that the Council created an expectation that the confined competition would be used for any other purpose.
The Trade Union’s claim before the Court is rejected.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
11 August 2016______________________
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Louise Shally, Court Secretary.