Labour Court Database
__________________________________________________________________________________
File Number: CD93280
Case Number: AD9353
Section / Act: S13(9)
Parties: DEPARTMENT OF DEFENCE - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
|
Subject:
Appeal against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation No. C.W. 332/92.
Recommendation:
5. Having considered the submissions and the verbal evidence
presented at the hearing, the Court cannot find sufficient grounds
to support the appeal. Therefore, the recommendation of the
Rights Commissioner should stand.
The Court so decides.
Division: Ms Owens Mr McHenry Mr O'Murchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD93280 APPEAL DECISION NO. AD5393
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES: DEPARTMENT OF DEFENCE
and
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Appeal against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation No. C.W.
332/92.
BACKGROUND:
2. 1. A Rights Commissioner's investigation took place on 30th
November, 1992 regarding a dispute in the Army's Athlone
Barracks on the regrading of 2 storemen and the appointment of
a ledger clerk at the Army Barracks in Athlone.
2. The Rights Commissioner's Recommendation as follows was
issued on 23rd March, 1993.
"Ledger Clerk
I recommend that the Union accepts that the position can
be filled by a military person.
Storeman 1
I recommend that Storeman 1 accepts that he is not
entitled to any retrospective appointment.
Storeman 2
I recommend that the acting position of Storeman 2 is
reviewed annually to assess suitability".
(Storemen 1 and 2 were named in the Recommendation).
The Recommendation was appealed to the Labour Court by the
Union on 20th April, 1993. At that time Storeman 2 had
retired on grounds of ill health and this part of the Rights
Commissioner's Recommendation was not considered by the Court.
3. The Union had sought for the Ledger Clerk position to be
filled by a civilian. It has been filled by an Army Private
since October, 1991.
4. Storeman 1 was promoted from the grade Storeman B to the
grade Storeman A with effect from 30th October, 1992. The
Union sought that the worker's appointment be made
retrospective to June, 1987 when, it claims, the worker took
over the position. A Labour Court investigation took place on
4th June, 1993.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. Ledger Clerk
This vacancy was filled by a civilian until October, 1991
when, due to a retirement, it was filled by an army private.
The position of ledger clerk is the only avenue of promotion
for the civilian staff and is generally filled from the
storeman grade. This has been a civilian appointment for the
last 20 years.
2. Storeman 1
The worker who was appointed to the position of Storeman A
with effect from 30th October, 1992, had in fact filled the
position since June, 1987 when the last incumbent retired.
The worker was paid at the B rate while carrying out the
higher duties until his promotion (details supplied). The
worker made application for the A post in 1988, 1990 and 1991.
By the time the worker was finally promoted, he had lost out
on over 5 years on the A rate.
DEPARTMENT'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. Ledger Clerk
All positions held by civilian employees in military
installations were formerly occupied by soldiers. Civilians
were recruited so soldiers could be deployed on military
duties. Government embargoes have led to a severe reduction
in the numbers of workers employed in the public service. The
Department is not in a position to fill the ledger clerk
vacancy with a civilian as the consequential vacancy could not
be filled and this would not be in the interests of the
efficient running of the unit.
2. Storeman 1
The worker was a Storeman B in Command Stores. The Storeman A
position became vacant in 1992 and the worker was promoted.
The claim to make retrospective the promotion of the worker
goes against Government decisions and cannot not be justified.
DECISION:
5. Having considered the submissions and the verbal evidence
presented at the hearing, the Court cannot find sufficient grounds
to support the appeal. Therefore, the recommendation of the
Rights Commissioner should stand.
The Court so decides.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Evelyn Owens
___________________
25th June, 1993. Deputy Chairman.
J.F./J.C.