FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : HSE WEST - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Ms Cryan Worker Member: Ms Tanham |
1. Appeal of Rights Commissioner's Recommendation r-105421-ir-11/SR.
BACKGROUND:
2. This dispute concerns the Worker's claim that she should be upgraded toSocial Work Team Leader. This matter was referred to a Rights Commissioner for investigation and recommendation. On the 21st September, 2011 the Rights Commissioner issued the following Recommendation:-
- “I recommend that the [Worker] be placed on the ... Team Leader Social Worker salary scale with effect from 1st June 2011. I further recommend that as a gesture of goodwill ... the Employer should pay [the Worker] the sum of €1,000 [which] is a compensatory lump sum payment and is not remuneration or arrears of remuneration”.
On the 28th October, 2011 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 25th March, 2012.
3. 1. This case predates both the moratorium on promotion and the Public Sector Agreement.
2. The Worker does more work for significantly less pay than her colleagues.
3.The unique circumstances of the Worker are such that she should be upgraded .
EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. This cost-increasing claim is precluded by the terms of the Public Service Agreement, 2010-2014.
2. Concession of this claim is also precluded under the moratorium on promotion.
3. Notwithstanding the above, it should be noted that there is no standardised grade / rate of pay for people undertaking this work.
DECISION:
In the Court's view the Union's claim has considerable merit and it is clearly unsustainable to continue an arrangement whereby different rates are paid for identical work.
The Union contends that the Social Work Team Leader scale is the appropriate rate for the job. It is also clear from correspondence between the Claimant's managers that they share the Union's view in that regard.
In these circumstances the Union's claim should properly be classified as being for the application of the appropriate rate for the job, as was identified by the Claimant's managers in correspondence dated 12th October 2009 and 23rd September 2009, in the nature of an individual re-grading, rather than for an increase in the existing rate. As such the claim is not precluded by the Public Service Agreement 2010-2014.
The Court is satisfied that the conclusions reached by the Rights Commissioner are reasonable and his recommendation should be affirmed. accordingly the appeal is disallowed.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
14th May, 2012______________________
JMcCChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Jonathan McCabe, Court Secretary.