Labour Court Database
__________________________________________________________________________________
File Number: CD93529
Case Number: LCR14217
Section / Act: S26(1)
Parties: AN BORD TRACHTALA - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
|
Subject:
Dispute concerning the rate of pay for a job.
Recommendation:
5. The Court is satisfied that the claimants concerned in this
dispute have been and are being denied their appropriate salary.
The Court accordingly recommends that they be paid forthwith at
the correct rate for the job, from the date of their appointment.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Keogh Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD93529 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14217
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES: AN BORD TRACHTALA
and
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning the rate of pay for a job.
BACKGROUND:
2. An Bord Trachtala (A.B.T.) appointed three workers to higher
positions, as follows:
1/7/92 Grade 2 (Secretary) to Grade 4 Promotions Executive,
8/8/92 Grade 2 (Secretary) to Grade 4 Information Systems advisor,
1/11/92 Grade 2 (Secretary) to Grade 3 Information Assistant.
The workers were advised in their letters of appointment that
payment due on foot of the promotions would be delayed pending
sanction by the Department of Finance. Following local
discussions, the matter was referred to the Labour Relations
Commission for investigation. Conciliation conferences were held
on the 3rd of June, 1993 and on the 28th of June, 1993, at which
agreement was not reached. The dispute was referred to the Labour
Court on the 13th of September, 1993 in accordance with Section
26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. The Court
investigated the dispute on the 11th of October, 1993.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The workers concerned have been performing the duties of a
higher grade job without receiving the commensurate
remuneration. It is unacceptable that they are not paid the
agreed rate for the work they are carrying out. The three
have honoured their commitment to their employer who has
failed them in return by not paying them the correct rate.
2. If the workers concerned were to cease performing their
duties, A.B.T. would have to recruit externally to replace
them. Under Government policy, this would have to be done on
a contract basis and accordingly A.B.T. would have to pay the
correct rate for the job. Apparently, where contract workers
are employed, sanction does not seem to be required.
Permanent workers are, therefore, less favourably treated than
contract workers.
AN BORD TRACHTALA'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. In keeping with normal practice, the candidates successful
in competition for a number of positions (including the three
in question) were advised that movement to their new grades
was subject to sanction by the Department of Finance. A
number of such promotions accumulated before the request for
sanction was made. Subsequently there were substantial
changes with regard to the parent Department of A.B.T.,
following realignment of Government Departments. There have
been discussions between the Departments of Trade and Tourism
on the matter. As recently as the 8th of October, 1993,
A.B.T. was advised that there would be an inter-Departmental
meeting held in the hope of resolving the issue. A.B.T. is
required to obtain approval in matters of remuneration and
once the approval is obtained, A.B.T. wishes to make the
payments.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court is satisfied that the claimants concerned in this
dispute have been and are being denied their appropriate salary.
The Court accordingly recommends that they be paid forthwith at
the correct rate for the job, from the date of their appointment.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Evelyn Owens
________________________
14th October, 1993. Deputy Chairman.
M.K./J.C.
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Michael Keegan, Court Secretary.