INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2001
SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
- AND -
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
Chairman: Mr Duffy
Employer Member: Mr Pierce
Worker Member: Mr. Somers
1. Appeal against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation IR3595/01/MR.
2. The worker concerned commenced employment with Limerick Corporation as a car park attendant in 1988. In March, 1994, he was appointed Acting Foreman on a Community Employment Scheme. In August, 1995, he was transferred to the Roads Department as a General Operative. In November, 1995, due to the commencement of additional Community Employment Schemes, he was appointed Acting Assistant Supervisor. In October, 2000, the Community Employment Scheme terminated and the worker concerned was assigned to the Stores Department as a General Operative.
The dispute relates to a claim by the Union that the worker concerned should retain the rate of pay for an Acting Assistant Supervisor. The Corporation rejects the claim.
The dispute was referred to a Rights Commissioner for investigation and recommendation. His recommendation issued on the 13th of July, 2001, as follows:-
"I, therefore, recommend that Limerick Corporation should agree to pay the worker the Acting Assistant Supervisor allowance for an additional period of three months over and above what has already been paid and that the worker and SIPTU should accept that this payment would be in full and final settlement of all claims arising from the worker's reversion to his substantive post."
(The worker was named in the Rights Commissioner's recommendation).
The Union appealed the recommendation to the Labour Court on the 2nd of August, 2001, in accordance with Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place in Limerick on the 31st of October, 2001.
3. 1. The worker concerned enjoyed an Acting Supervisor's rate of pay for a period of five years. It is unfair and unreasonable that he should suffer such a reduction in pay as a result of reverting to his substantive post. He did not voluntarily give up his position as Acting Supervisor.
2. Due to his involvement in Community Employment Schemes, the worker lost out on promotional opportunities.
3. Recently, the Corporation agreed to pay a worker three times the annual loss when he was transferred from a Temporary Acting Supervisory position.
4. 1 The worker concerned was aware that the position held by him on the Community Employment Scheme was temporary and on termination of the scheme, he would revert to his substantive post and his wages would be adjusted accordingly.
2. On a previous occasion, the worker concerned reverted to his substantive post and did not pursue the issue in relation to any loss of earnings.
3. The worker concerned did not lose out on promotional opportunities. He was fully briefed on any promotional posts which would have arisen.
Having considered the submissions of the parties, the Court believes that the recommendation of the Rights Commissioner is reasonable and should be upheld. However, this should not preclude the claimant from benefiting from any more favourable arrangements which might be agreed nationally in relation to the termination of CE schemes sponsored by Local Authorities.
With this qualification, the Recommendation of the Rights Commissioner is upheld.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
15th November, 2001______________________
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Gerardine Buckley, Court Secretary.