INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
- AND -
(REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION)
Chairman: Mr Foley
Employer Member: Mr Marie
Worker Member: Mr McCarthy
1. Reinstatement of Original Pay
2. This case concerns a dispute between the worker and his employer in relation to the restoration of pay. The worker changed roles within the organisation taking on a new role on what he contended were medical grounds. The worker initially accepted the lower rate of pay in the new position but later claimed others had moved in similar circumstances to new positions but retained their previous levels of earnings.
Management contends that workers who transfer and retain their original rate of pay do so only in particular circumstances and where they are surplus in their previous role.
The worker referred the matter to the Labour Court on 16th November 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 7th January 2016.
3 1 The worker was unable to continue in his role of Signal Operative and sought a transfer on medical grounds. The new role of Station Operative is paid at a lower rate of pay and a significant loss of earnings has occurred. The worker's position is that he would have retained his original rate of pay had he been redeployed by management but is now in receipt of significantly lower earnings on the basis of having sought the transfer himself. In the circumstances the worker is seeking the restoration of his original rate of pay as has been applied to others in similar circumstances.
4 1 Management has applied its policies and procedures in relation to the worker's transfer. A worker transferring to a new position on medical grounds is paid the rate of pay that applies to the new role. Management does not accept that there are other workers in the same circumstances who have retained their previous rates of pay.
The Court has carefully considered the detailed submissions of the parties and the points made at the hearing. The Court cannot find any evidence that the Company acted in a manner contrary to normal practice or in contravention of policies in the area of staff deployment. The Court therefore cannot find a basis to support the position of the claimant.
The Court does however have difficulty in reconciling the medical advice dated November 2012 with that dated November 2013 as supplied to the Court. Notwithstanding the Court’s view therefore as regards the merits of the claim before it the Court believes that the inconsistency in the medical advices, and the effect or impact of that inconsistency on the circumstances of this case, should be acknowledged by the company and that it should, as a gesture of good industrial relations, make a payment to the claimant of €1,750 in full and final settlement of the issues in dispute.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
25th January 2016______________________
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Andrew Heavey, Court Secretary.