FULL RECOMMENDATION
SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : WEXFORD COUNTY COUNCIL (REPRESENTED BY LGMA) - AND - ELIZABETH HORE (REPRESENTED BY IRISH MUNICIPAL, PUBLIC AND CIVIL TRADE UNION) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Foley Employer Member: Ms Doyle Worker Member: Ms Tanham |
1. Appeal of Adjudication Officer Decision No. ADJ-00005203.
BACKGROUND:
2. This case concerns two matters. Firstly, a claim for payment of an acting-up allowance and secondly, a claim for appointment to the post of Senior Executive Officer with effect from 4th January, 2017. This matter was referred to an Adjudication Officer for investigation and Recommendation. On the 3 July 2017 the Adjudication Officer issued the following Recommendation:-
- I have considered carefully all the matters before me. It must be accepted that an appointment has been made to the specific position in dispute and that appointment must stand. I recommend, however, that the complainant be appointed to the next permanent SEO vacancy in the Authority, subject to the assurance given by the union that this dispute relates to this Authority alone and has no implications for other authorities or for the placement of other candidates on panels.
The Employer appealed the Adjudication Officer’s Recommendation to the Labour Court on the 9th August 2017 in accordance with Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969.
A Labour Court hearing took place on the 5th December 2017.
DECISION:
The Court has given careful consideration to the written and oral submissions of the parties.
The dispute relates to two matters (a) a claim for payment of an “acting up” allowance from July 2013 until February 2015, and (b) a claim for appointment to the post of Senior Executive Officer in the Respondent Council with effect from 4thJanuary 2017.
The Court notes with regard to the first matter that the Claimant voluntarily agreed to act in the position of Senior Executive Officer with no payment in return from July 2013. The Court further notes that no complaint or claim in that regard was raised by the Claimant or her Trade Union at that time or indeed until some time after the period of unpaid “acting” had ceased.
In all of the circumstances the Court cannot, at this remove, recommend in favour of payment of the allowance from July 2013 to February 2015 and that aspect of the within appeal fails.
As regards the second matter the Court notes that the Claimant has been acting in the position of Senior Executive Officer since 2013. In that period a range of factors have arisen which appear to have impinged upon the Claimant’s prospects of appointment to the position of Senior Executive Officer. In particular the Court has been advised that the Workforce Planning process in the sector had a bearing on this matter in the period since 2014.
The Court notes that both parties accept that engagement locally in respect of the Workforce Planning process could have been more effective than it was. It is unclear to the Court however how this apparent lack of effective local consultation / engagement has affected the resolution of the within matter over the period.
The Court therefore, in this interim Recommendation, recommends that the Council, in concert with relevant authorities, should review the history of this matter having particular regard to the local Workforce Planning process in the Respondent Council and any other relevant factors with a view to establishing whether an inequity may have arisen such as to give rise to the current dispute.
The Court invites the parties to engage locally following that review and if necessary to report the outcome to the Court such that the Court can, if necessary, issue a definitive Recommendation in the matter.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Foley
14th December, 2017.______________________
CCChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Ceola Cronin, Court Secretary.