LCR22501

FULL RECOMMENDATION

SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969

PARTIES :

IARNROD EIREANN

- AND -

A WORKER
(REPRESENTED BY CONNECT TRADE UNION)

DIVISION :

SUBJECT:

1. Appeal of Adjudication Officer Decision No(s) ADJ-00031642 CA-00042240-001.

BACKGROUND:

2. This dispute concerns the Worker's claim that the WRC Adjudication Officer's Decision did not uphold his contention that he had received and signed a written contract which entitles him to work the same roster and on-call arrangements of the established Inspectors Grade. This dispute was referred to the Workplace Relations Commissioner for investigation and recommendation. On 26 July 2021 the Adjudication Officer issued the following Recommendation: -

" I do not recommend concession of the Employee's claim that he is entitled to roster and on-call arrangements similar to that of established inspectors in the grade.

I recommend that Employer pay the Employee compensation of €3,000 for the unreasonable and careless manner in which it dealt with the Employee's promotion."

On 3 September 2021, the Employee appealed the Adjudication Officer’s Recommendation to the Labour Court in accordance with Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969.

A Labour Court hearing took place on 2 November 2021.

DECISION :

The issue in dispute between the parties arises from a WRC agreement to resolve the issue of long-term acting up arrangements. The agreement provided for two arrangements 1) where an employee had been acting up in a higher grade continuously for four years in an established vacancy 2) was a restatement of an existing arrangement whereby an individual on project work can achieves a higher grade under the eight-year rule. Appointments made under the eight- year rule are made on a personal to holder basis. If the Worker returns to his previous work position, he will retain the higher grade on a personal to holder basis.

The Union submitted that the letter of appointment that the Worker received arising from the WRC agreement set out that he was on a B72 contract and provided details of his reporting structure, pension arrangements, salary and stated that he would be required to work 48 hours over a 5-day arrangement. However, when he reported for duty, he was advised by his line manager that he would be required to work 48 hours on a 5 over 7-day roster.

This requires him to work weekends, nights, answer and attend calls. The Union submitted that other Workers on B72 contracts work 45 of the 48 hours and retain 3 hours for call outs. The net effect for this Worker is that he does not receive any payment for the first three hours of call out. This Worker has in fact been placed on a hybrid contract with n engagement as to how that would operate. It is the Union’s submission that he met the criteria for the full B72 grade and should get the full terms and conditions of that grade.

The Employer submitted that the in error the wrong contract was issued to the Worker. error. They accepted that they had not re-issued what they believed to be the correct contract but submitted that was because they were in talks with the Union.

It was the Employers submission that the Worker was not acting into an established vacancy and therefore his acting allowance had arisen from project work which meant he fell to be dealt with under part 2 of the WRC agreement.

The Employer initially submitted that the Worker under that agreement was only entitled to the pay of the higher grade. However, they accepted that this was not written down anywhere, but it is their position that everyone knew this was how acting up for this category of staff applied.

In response to questions from the Court the Employer confirmed that the Complainant was in fact entitled to more than just the rate of pay. The Employer confirmed that he also received the annual leave of the higher grade and paid into the pensions scheme of the higher grade. The Employer submitted that they were not aware of the issues in respect of on-call and that these had never been raised with them.

Discussion and Decision

The Court having considered the submissions of both parties determines that the Employer should set out in detail the reasons why they believe this Worker falls to be dealt with under the 8-year rule and why he was deemed not eligible under the four-year rule. They should also set out what they believe are the specific terms and conditions attaching to the hybrid role which they appear to be creating arising from deciding that his case came under the 8-year rule.

The Court determines that the manner in which this issue has been addressed to date has been less than satisfactory and confirms the award of compensation of €3,000.

The Decision of the Adjudication officer is varied accordingly.

The Court so decides.

NOTE

Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Therese Hickey, Court Secretary.