LCR22557

FULL RECOMMENDATION

SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969

PARTIES :

HSE WEST CH02

- AND -

A WORKER
(REPRESENTED BY MS PAULA WHYTE)

DIVISION :

SUBJECT:

1. Incremental Credit.

BACKGROUND:

2. This dispute was referred to the Labour Court by the worker in accordance with Section 20 (1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place in a virtual setting on 25 January 2022.

RECOMMENDATION :

This matter comes before the Court as a unilateral referral by the worker made in accordance with the provisions of Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. The worker has undertaken to accept the recommendation of the Court.

The Court notes that the worker is a member, albeit only recently, of a Trade Union recognised by the employer for the purposes of individual and collective bargaining.

The Court has considered carefully the comprehensive written and oral submissions of the parties. The worker seeks to have incremental credit afforded to her arising from her previous employment in a GP practice.

The Court is satisfied that the worker seeks to have the Court interpret a collective agreement and ensuing circular concluded in March 2000 between the Trade Union of which she is a member and the employer. That agreement addressed the matter of incremental credit for Paramedical, Clerical / Administrative and analogous grades. The Court notes that the employer contends that it is operating the existing collective agreement correctly in respect of the worker who is covered by that agreement. The Court has not had the benefit of the perspective of the Trade Union in relation to the matter.

In the view of the Court, it is a matter, initially at least, for the parties to a collective agreement to address matters of interpretation between themselves. A role for the Court can only arise at the behest of those parties utilising agreed dispute resolution procedures when the parties cannot agree amongst themselves.

In those circumstances, the Court recommends that the worker should engage with her Trade Union and that any difference of interpretation of the agreement of 2000 which might exist between the Trade Union and the employer should be addressed jointly by those parties.

The Court so recommends.

NOTE

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