INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2001
SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
- AND -
MR SEAN BRAZIL
(REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION)
Chairman: Mr Flood
Employer Member: Mr Pierce
Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu
2. The Union are claiming that the Company have failed to honour the agreement to promote the employee to operative Grade 'C' Supervisor. The claimant is employed as a premises cleaner for the last 10 years with the Company. In December, 1997, the previous Supervisor went on sick leave. The claimant was appointed to act in the position of Supervisor Grade 'C'. He acted in this position from December, 1997 until December, 1999. In February, 1999, the previous supervisor was redeployed. In March, 1999, the Union sought that the claimant be made permanent in the Grade having regard to Article 4.4 of the Operative Grades Agreement. Promises were made that if Article 4.4 of the Operative Grades Agreement applied it would be honoured. At this time the Company was concerned that they would lose the contract with FLS and, therefore, decided not to make the claimant permanent. The claimant has suffered a financial loss as a result.
Article 4.1 of the Operative Grades Agreement states that:-
"Appointments to higher grades shall be dependent on vacancies occurring or on new promotional positions being created within the Operative Grades".
The Company state that the vacancy was not filled due to the uncertainty of the TEAM/FLS Aerospace Contract. They also state that many of the duties were carried out by the Premises Services Officer and that the claimant only performed a contact role.
3. 1. The claimant was appointed to act in the position of Supervisor Grade 'C' and was paid 1 hour's double time. He acted in this position from December, 1997 until December, 1999.
2. Article 4.4 of the Operative Grades Agreement states:-
"Where an employee has acted in a continuous temporary capacity up to the date when the permanent vacancy occurs for a period of three months or more, the vacancy will be filled by the acting employee".
Promises were made that if Article 4.4 of the Operative Grades Agreement applied it would be honoured. The claimant had been told that he would be promoted on a permanents basis.
4. 1. Many of the direct Supervision duties were carried out by the Premises Services Officer and the claimant only performed a contact role.
2. The Company did not fill the vacancy caused by the transfer of the previous Grade 'C' Supervisor given the uncertain nature of the TEAM/FLS Aerospace Contract.
The Court having considered carefully the written and oral submissions and the background to this case, recommends that the claimant be given the Grade C on a personal basis, backdated to 1st June, 1999. He does not progress within the Supervisory scale other than through National Pay Agreements unless promoted to a Supervisory Role.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
21st June, 2001______________________
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Marian O'Connell, Court Secretary.