INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004
SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
- AND -
Chairman: Mr Duffy
Employer Member: Mr Murphy
Worker Member: Mr Nash
1. A Dispute concerning the appropriate rate of pay of one worker.
2. The case before the Court concerns a dispute betweenIarnrod Eireann and the claimant in relation to the appropriate point on an incremental pay scale to be used on promotion. The worker in question is claiming that, following promotion to the driver grade, he was not paid the appropriate rate of pay.
The Company reject the claim on the basis that an agreement exists whereby staff on promotion are placed on the nearest highest point to their previous rate of pay plus one point on the scale, which was applied in this case.
The worker referred his case to the Labour Court on the 17th of August, 2005, in accordance with Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 6th of October, 2005. The worker agreed to be bound by the Court's Recommendation.
3. 1. There was no recognition given by the Company to previous serviceprior to promotion when calculating the appropriate increase in pay.
4. 1. The appropriate point on the pay scale of "nearest highest plus one" was used in this case, which is the agreed practice in matters such as these.
2. The dispute was dealt with in the appropriate way using the agreed dispute resolution procedures. The finding of the Drivers Monitoring Committee issued its findings which is binding all all parties. The agreed internal procedures were utilised and brought to a conclusion. It is, therefore, not appropriate to re-open the case.
3. Concession of the claim would have serious repercussions and would negate the agreed mechanism for internal dispute resolution.
The issue before the Court has already been processed to finality through the agreed internal procedures of the Company. At the final stage of that procedure the claim was submitted to and adjudicated on by the Drivers Monitoring Committee, the ruling of which is binding on all parties.
In these circumstances the Court cannot reopen the claim. The Court recommends that the claimant accept the finality of the adjudication of the Monitoring Committee on his claim.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
26th October, 2005______________________
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Andrew Heavey, Court Secretary.