FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : TEAGASC - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY UNION OF CONSTRUCTION, ALLIED TRADES AND TECHNICIANS) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Foley Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Mr Shanahan |
1. Various issues.
BACKGROUND:
2. This dispute concerns the Worker's claim that he should have been appointed as a Permanent Craftsperson. The Worker referred this case to the Labour Court on 7th August, 2015, in accordance with Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969, and agreed to be bound by the Court's Recommendation. A Labour Court hearing took place on 10th November, 2015.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. After the Worker completed his apprenticeship he never received the Craftsman's rate from Teagasc.
2. The Worker was a permanent employee of Teagasc since completing his apprenticeship in 2006.
3.The Worker was never given the right to join the Teagasc Draft Superannuation Scheme.
EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Claimant has been regularised and appointed to the position of Maintenance Craftsman with effect from 1st January, 2015 in accordance with the exceptional sanction received from the Department of Agriculture Food and the Marine.
2. The claim for compensation cannot be justified as the Claimant was paid in line with the local arrangement he had entered into in the period prior to January 2015 when his position became permanent and pensionable at Maintenance Craftsman level.
- 3. The Claimant has no entitlement to be paid a Tool Allowance when he was not employed as a Maintenance Craftsman.
RECOMMENDATION:
This is a referral under Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. Mr Padraig Geary (the Claimant) commenced employment with Teagasc (the Respondent) in June 2002 and qualified as a carpenter in October 2006. Since qualification the Claimant has remained in employment with Teagasc.
Summary of the Claimant’s case.
UCATT, on behalf of the Claimant, contend that he should have been appointed as a craftsperson within one month of successful completion of his apprenticeship. The union contends that the Claimant has been fulfilling the role and function of craftsperson during his employment with Teagasc since his qualification. The Union contends that the matter has been raised on a number of occasions since 2006 but no agreement was reached. The Union believes that the Claimant should be retrospectively appointed as a craftsperson with effect from 2006 and that his rate of pay, pension arrangements and allowances should be aligned with the craftsperson’s terms since that time.
Summary of Respondent’s position
The Respondent stated that the Claimant had been employed in a non-pensionable capacity on a ‘local casual arrangement’ since the completion of his apprenticeship and his rate of pay has been equated to that of the final year apprentice rate. The Respondent stated that the nature of the claimant’s employment status was not known to the HR Department of the organisation until March 2011. The Respondent stated that the claimant had no entitlement to employment as a maintenance craftsperson on completion of his apprenticeship due to the lack of sanction for such an appointment in the context of ‘the Moratorium’. The Respondent also stated that casual staff are employed on short term contracts for durations usually not exceeding three months.
The Respondent has regularised the claimant’s employment as a maintenance craftsperson since early 2015 and has offered arrangements for ‘buy back’ of pension for the duration of the Claimant’s employment with Teagasc as well as payment of tool allowance for the appropriate period of the Claimant’s apprenticeship. The Respondent believes that no further liabilities should arise for the respondent.
Findings of the Court
The Court notes that terms and conditions of employment for craftspersons employed by Teagasc are covered by terms agreed nationally. The Respondent confirmed to the Court that no other terms are in place for employment of craftspersons in Teagasc. The Court has been supplied with documentation which demonstrates that in 2011 the respondent confirmed to FAS that an apprentice to be placed with the Respondent would be supervised in the apprenticeship by the Claimant. The Respondent at the hearing did not dispute that during his employment the Claimant has carried out the role and function of craftsperson.
The Court is clear that the Claimant was employed to carry out the role and function of a craftsperson on an apparently unsanctioned and atypical locally agreed ‘casual’ arrangement between 2006 and 2015 and that this arrangement did not conform with any national agreement or arrangement formally in place in Teagasc for the employment of craftspersons.
Recommendation
The Court recommends that the Claimant should accept the regularisation of his position with effect from 1st January 2015.
The Respondent should pay a sum of €30,000 to the Claimant in compensation for the longstanding irregularity of his employment arrangements up to 1st January 2015 and in full and final settlement of all claims including those related to pay and tool allowance. The Court recommends that the Claimant should be afforded the facility to assign an element of this sum to a pension ‘buy back’ arrangement. The parties should engage locally to put in place the appropriate arrangements in this regard.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Foley
CO'R______________________
4th December, 2015Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Clodagh O'Reilly, Court Secretary.