FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : COMMISSIONERS OF IRISH LIGHTS - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY PSEU) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Doherty Worker Member: Mr Nash |
1. Appeal of a Rights Commissioner's Recommendation R-81068-IR-09/RG
BACKGROUND:
2. The issue involves a claim by the Union on behalf of its member in relation to changes made to the terms and conditions of employment. The Claimant, as part of a job-sharing scheme, commenced her employment on a two and a half day work week finishing at 5.00 pm on her full days. When the claimant's hours increased to a 3 day week the finishing time of 5.00pm remained the same, however the claimant was incurring penalties on her clocking system as a result. When the claimant questioned this infringement she was informed that she had been working insufficient hours in terms of the salary she was receiving and was given the option to choose between reducing her hours of work and as a result receive a lower salary, or to increase her finishing time to 5.15pm on two of her working days and receive the same salary as she had already been receiving. The Claimant refused to choose either option and continued to receive her full salary while working the lesser amount of hours. The Employer subsequently reduced her salary to reflect the amount of hours being worked and the issue could not be resolved at local level discussions. The matter was referred to a Rights Commissioner for investigation and recommendation. On the 11th February 2010, the Rights Commissioner issued her Recommendation as follows:
"On the basis of the evidence and submissions made at the Hearing I find and recommend as follows:
1. There are some 180 full-time and 70 part-time employees working with the Commissioner for Irish Lights. There is an agreed Job-Sharing Scheme in existence in the employment.
2. Both parties confirmed that Claimant* is working 58.34% of the full-time working hours of 36 hours net per week and is receiving 60% of the full-time salary. This has continued from June 2008 to date.
3. Claimant has been given two options as set out in the letter dated 7th April 2009 to either continue to work 58.34% hours and receive 58.34% of salary per week or to work 60% of the normal hours and receive 60% of the normal salary.
4. Claimant should indicate to her Employer which of the options set out in the letter of 7th April 2009 she wishes to accept. Option 1 or Option 2 should then be implemented with effect from 1st March 2010.
5. To facilitate Claimant's working arrangements I further recommend that the Flexible Working Hours System be applied to her also with effect from 1st March 2010".
* Claimant was named in Rights Commissioner's Recommendation
On the 1st March 2010, the employer appealed theRights 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 17th June 2010.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
1. When the Claimant increased her hours of work from a two and a half to a three day week she recieved a letter indicating that other conditions of employment would remain the same and no increase in finish time was outlined.
2. There was no agreement from the Claimant with regards to any reduction in her salary or any increase to her finishing time of work.
3. The Claimant was not granted access to the Flexible Working Hours system of attendance whereas the majority of her colleagues and her manager enjoyed the benefits of this system.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
1.Management were agreeable to the Rights Commissioner's Recommendation and were happy to apply it once it was accepted by the Union on behalf of its member.
2.It is at Management's discretion which positions are suitable for Flexi-time and Management believe that the Claimant's position is not suitable for the Flexi-time system therefore did not grant the Claimant access to the system.
DECISION:
Having considered the submissions of the parties to the appeal the Court has come to the conclusion that the fairest solution to the current dispute is for management to elect between allowing the Claimant continue on the hours of work and salary which applied prior to the dispute arising, namely 9.00 to 17.00 at 60% of the appropriate salary, without access to flexi-time, or accepting the formula of the Rights Commissioner, with the management exercising its prerogative to allow the Claimant access to the flexi-time facility.
The Court amends the Recommendation of the Rights Commissioner in accordance with this decision.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
28th June 2010______________________
SCChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Sharon Cahill, Court Secretary.