FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : WICKLOW COUNTY COUNCIL (REPRESENTED BY LOCAL GOVERNMENT MANAGEMENT SERVICES BOARD (LGMSB)) - AND - A WORKER DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Hayes Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Appeal of Recommendation of a Rights Commissioner r-080432-ir-09/EH
BACKGROUND:
2. The Worker was employed as a Staff Officer with Wicklow County Council. Until 10th November 2008 he had been receiving his salary by means of a Pay Order drawn on a bank in Wicklow Town. Paypath was introduced for his grade in 1996 and had its origins in the Programme for Competitiveness and Work (PCW) and later Paypath became an agreed part of the drive to modernise payroll systems as set out in Sections 20 to 26 of Sustaining Progress. During the various stages of the "verification process" provided for in successive Public Sector Pay Agreements, it became clear that some Employees were not cooperating with the introduction of Paypath. The decision to withhold percentage salary increases to these Employees was taken by the LGMSB in consultation with the Local Authority National Council. This case involves a Worker who is claiming payment of arrears due following his belated signing of the authorisation of the Paypath form in November, 2008.
The matter was referred to a Rights Commissioner for investigation and recommendation. The Rights Commissioner issued his Recommendation on the 1st December, 2009, as follows:
"I find that the worker was the creator of his own misfortune in this case. One cannot expect to partake in increases in pay without making the contribution to the ongoing change measures that are being implemented, which form an intrinsic part of that agreement.
I find that the Council adequately informed him of the requirements to sign up to paypath and the consequences of not doing so.
I recommend that this claim fails."
On the 8th January 2010 the Worker appealed the Rights Commissioner's Recommendation to the Labour Court in accordance with Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 21st May, 2010.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. It has always been the Worker's understanding that arrears going back to June 2006 would be paid on completion of the Paypath authorisation form.
2. The Council failed to advised the Worker of the consequences of not signing on for Paypath. In particular he had he been advised that the payment of arrears might be withheld if he delayed signing on for Paypath. It was not until he received a letter dated 6th March, 2009 from the Head of Finance that he became aware of this policy. Despite the exchange of numerous pieces of correspondence over a lengthy period, this was the first indication that there might be a problem regarding arrears.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Council has applied pay increases applicable to Employees under National Pay Agreements in full conformity with the terms of these Agreements. The payment of percentage increases is conditional on staff's cooperation with the change and modernisation agenda of which Paypath is an integral part.
2. All staff were made fully aware that cooperation was necessary in order to qualify for the percentage increases, which the Worker did not comply with until November 2008, accordingly the increases due to him are only paid to him after this date.
DECISION:
The Court has given careful consideration to the extensive oral and written submission of both parties.
Co-operation with pay-path is a condition precedent to the implementation of pay increases provided for under successive national agreements in the Local Authority Sector and this has been consistently upheld by the Court . The Court does not distinguish this case in any way and upholds the Rights Commissioner's Recommendation in this regard.
However, there were shortcomings in the manner in which the Claimant and the Council dealt with the processing of this case.
Accordingly, the Court awards the Claimant the sum of €2,500 euro in full and final settlement of this aspect of the matter and varies the Recommendation of the Rights Commissioner accordingly.
The Court so decides.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Brendan Hayes
12th June, 2010______________________
JFDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to John Foley, Court Secretary.