FULL RECOMMENDATION
SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY FORSA TRADE UNION) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Hayes Employer Member: Ms Doyle Worker Member: Ms Tanham |
1. Appeal of Adjudication Officer's Recommendation No ADJ-00007731.
BACKGROUND:
2. The case before the Court concerns the Worker's appeal ofAdjudication Officer Recommendation No ADJ-00007731.The dispute relates specifically to the Worker's claim that he has an entitlement to be returned to his former position in the Waste Management Department from which he transferred when the Council discontinued its involvement in domestic waste bin collections. As part of the transfer agreement he received a buy out of the consequential. He claims that under the terms of the transfer agreement he is entitled to return to the Waste Management Department as vacancies arise. He confirms his willingness to return the buy out he received as part of the transfer agreement. The matter was referred to an Adjudication Officer for investigation and recommendation. On the 14th December 2017, the Adjudication Officer delivered his Recommendation. He recommended as follows:
- "I recommend that should a vacancy arise in the respondent waste collection department and the complainant is entitled to the position on the basis of seniority, that the complainant be permitted to take up the role and to receive the cleansing deal payment from the date of his return to waste management, as well as to repay the compensation he received from the respondent for the loss of the cleansing deal payment".
On the 23rd January 2018, the Union appealed the Adjudication Officer'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 29th March, 2018.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. It is the Union's case that the Worker, in accordance with the terms of the transfer agreement, applied to return to the Waste Management Services Department in 2015.
2. The Union maintains that the terms of Labour Court Recommendation No. 20342 confirms the complainant's entitlement to return to the Waste Management Department as vacancies arise and asserts that it should have been applied to the Claimant in 2015 when he first asserted his desire to avail of the terms of the Agreement.
3. The Worker is again seeking a return to the Waste Management Services Department in accordance with the terms of the associated Agreement and commits to reimburse the Council the sum he received by way of buyout paid to him at the time of his transfer out of the Department.
EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Employer maintains that Labour Court Recommendation No. 20342 is now five years old, is no longer relevant and cannot regulate the basis of which the Employer manages its operations at present.
2. The Employer contends that returning the Worker to the Waste Management Services Department would have a detrimental effect on the requirements of the section in which he is currently employed.
3. The Employer rejects the Union's contention that reinstatement in the Waste Management Services Department would entail returning the compensation previously paid to the Worker and reapplication of the Cleansing Deal payment. It maintains that the impugned cleansing allowance has now been bought out and any new or transferred employee assigned to the Waste Management Section have no entitlement to payment of what is now an historic allowance.
.
DECISION:
Having given careful consideration to the submissions of both parties to this dispute the Court finds no merit in the Union's appeal and affirms the Recommendation of the Adjudication Officer.
The Court so decides.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Brendan Hayes
27 April 2018______________________
SCDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Sharon Cahill, Court Secretary.