FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : BORD NA M�NA - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION) DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Ms Tanham |
1. Appeal of Recommendation of a Rights Commissioner r-095109-ir-10/GC.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Worker has been employed by Bord na M�na since June1986. His current job is as a Storeman at the Boora Stores facility along with two others of the same grade. The Union contends that the clerical duties that he alone performs set him apart from his two colleagues and put him on a par with clerical staff elsewhere working for the Bord. Management argue that as all the Storemen are already paid an annual allowance of €3,000 each since 2005 for taking on extra duties, this claim should be rejected.
The issue involves a claim by a Worker. The matter was referred to a Rights Commissioner for investigation and recommendation. On the 7th March 2011, the Rights Commissioner issued her Recommendation as follows:-
"I note the historical position as outlined by the Company that the move to a team based system resulted in staff retaining their pay scale on a "red circle" basis. To concede Mr B's claim would upset that situation and probably lead to repercussive claims. While I do not find that the claimant's pay scale be changed, I recommend that a once off gesture, which cannot be quoted in any other claim, that the company offer Mr B a payment of €2,000 in settlement of the claim."
On the 23rd March, 2011 the Employer and on 6th April 2011 the Union appealed the Rights Commissioners 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 27th March, 2012.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Worker is merely seeking parity with other staff working at other Bord na M�na facilities and who perform similar clerical duties.
2. The Claimant argues that he alone carries out clerical duties and he was personally requested to do so by Management. The €3,000 allowance granted in 2005 does not compensate him for the clerical duties he now performs.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. To increase the Worker's pay now would reward him for taking on duties for which he, as part of a team, has already been rewarded. The Storemen work in a team-based system and the duties of the Boora Stores are allocated on a team basis as and when required. No one person is responsible for clerical duties.
2. Agreement was reached with the Union in 2008 on the team structures and working arrangements for the Boora Stores.
DECISION:
The issue before the Court is a joint appeal by both the Employer and the Claimant of a Rights Commissioner’s Recommendation which found against the Claimant’s claim for pay parity with clerical workers whom he claimed performed similar work. While finding against his claim the Rights Commissioner recommended that he should be paid a once-off gesture of €2,000 in settlement of his claim.
The Union on behalf of the Claimant submitted that the Claimant who worked in the Stores in the Boora plant was solely responsible for invoicing which accounted for approximately 80% of his work. It submitted that the Claimant performed these duties as there were no clerical employees in the Stores area and accordingly submitted that his duties were similar to clerical workers employed in the Stores area elsewhere.
The Employer stated that the Stores personnel in Boora entered into an agreement in 2008 to work as a team and that all functions of the Stores would be shared amongst the team. The Agreement specifically mentioned that the invoicing function would form part of the work of the team. Prior to the agreement this function had been carried out by a Supervisor. The agreement included a €3,000 per annum payment on a ‘red-circled’ basis for each member of the team. Furthermore, the Employer stated that the clerical employees in the Stores area in other plants are on a ‘red-circled’ rate of pay and they perform the invoicing duties amongst other clerical functions.
The Court notes that it transpired that the Claimant has solely been carrying out the invoicing function which he stated was the most practical way to perform the role and the Court formed the view that he is clearly dedicated and efficient in this role.
The Court is satisfied that the 2008 Agreement provided that invoicing duties would be carried out as part of the team functions in the Stores area and a payment was paid in recognition of these and other Stores’ duties. The Court does not accept that there are groundsfor changing his pay rate to align his pay to that paid to ‘red-circled’ clerical rates and accordingly rejects the claim. The Court concurs with the finding of the Rights Commissioner and upholds her Recommendation that in all the circumstances of this case a once-off gesture of €2,000 should be paid in settlement of his claim.
The Court so decides
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
23rd April, 2012______________________
JFDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to John Foley, Court Secretary.