INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
IRISH CONGRESS OF TRADE UNIONS (ICTU)
- AND -
AMALGAMATED TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
Chairman: Mr Flood
Employer Member: Mr McHenry
Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu
1. Appeal against the Rights Commissioner's Recommendation IR 278/99/JH.
2. The worker is employed as a Clerical Officer by ICTU. The Union submitted a claim on behalf of the worker for re-grading to Staff Officer and claims that the work now performed by the worker is broadly comparable with work performed by Staff Officers in ICTU.
ICTU rejected the claim and states that the work performed by the claimant is equivalent to that of a Clerical Officer employed in the Civil Service. It claims that there has been no change in the level of responsibilities which would merit re-grading. ICTU states that the claimant is currently in receipt of a responsibility allowance of £23.56 per week.
The dispute was the subject of a Rights Commissioner's hearing which took place on the 28th of May, 1999. The following is the Rights Commissioner's Recommendation:-
"Based on the evidence presented at the hearing, I recommend that the worker should receive an increase of £5 in the responsibility allowance with effect from 1st of August, 1999, and a lump sum of £500 in consideration of the circumstances as set out in my conclusions. She should continue that co-operation as required. ICTU should advise her before the end of September of the precise nature of responsibility and workload for the foreseeable future. The duties should take into account her rate of pay and the responsibility allowance and the level of responsibility should reflect these payments."
Both sides appealed the Recommendation to the Labour Court on the 19th of July, 1999, in accordance with Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 20th of September, 1999.
(The worker was named in the Rights Commissioner's Recommendation).
3. 1. The payment of a responsibility allowance is no longer adequate recognition for the level of work performed by the claimant.
3. 2. There is no method of evaluating the relative grades within the ICTU.
3. 3. The work performed by the claimant is comparable to work performed by Staff Officers in ICTU.
3. 4. The worker undertakes the duties of Staff Officer when staff are absent through sickness or annual leave.
4. 1. There has been no increase in the level of responsibilities which would warrant re-grading.
4. 2. Any additional work or responsibilities that may exist from time to time are compensated for by the special responsibility allowance.
4. 3. Concession of the claim will lead to follow-on claims.
4. 4. Agreement under the Programme for Competitiveness and Work (PCW) provided for the acceptance of the need for flexibility with regard to work.
The Court is satisfied that the payment of £500 was for additional workload and responsibility and not just for uncertainty surrounding future arrangements.
Having considered all the information supplied, the Court finds that the Rights Commissioner's Recommendation is appropriate in this case.
The Court, therefore, rejects both appeals and upholds the Rights Commissioner's Recommendation.
The Court so decides.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
1st November, 1999.______________________
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Larry Wisely, Court Secretary.