FULL RECOMMENDATION
SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : FINGAL COUNTY COUNCIL - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION) DIVISION : Chairman: Ms O'Donnell Employer Member: Ms Doyle Worker Member: Mr McCarthy |
1. Appeal Of Adjudication Officer Recommendation No:ADJ-00012006 CA-00015835-001
BACKGROUND:
2. This case concerns pay.
- This matter was referred to an Adjudication Officer for investigation and Recommendation. On 4 July 2018 the Adjudication Officer issued the following Recommendation:-
- ''I recommend that no change be made to the complainant’s rate of pay or terms and conditions of employment as long as he continues to carry out the role of Chargehand Fitter. If, in the future, a vacancy arises for the job of Foreperson Fitter Turner, if he applies for the job, he should be considered. In the meantime, if the complainant requests a letter confirming his current job title as a Chargehand Fitter in Swords/Malahide, with the rate of pay for this job, the respondent should facilitate this request and the letter should be considered as an amendment of the contract which was issued in July 2010."
DECISION:
This is an appeal by the Union on behalf of a Worker of Adjudication Officers Decision ADJ-00012006 in which the Worker’s complaint was that that the Council had failed to apply the appropriate rate of pay as per his contract.The Adjudication Officer did not uphold the complaint.
Union Position
The Worker commenced employment with the Employer in 2005 as a Chargehand Fitter. In July 2010 he took up the role of Foreman Fitter Turner in the Leixlip Waterworks. This role carried a higher salary rate and higher-level duties. In September 2011 the Worker became ill and was hospitalised. It is his contention that in March 2012 his entitlement to paid sick leave was running out and that in that context he sought to reduce his working hours or to be assigned to light duties. In April 2012 he returned to work at a different Depot and he was paid at the Chargehand rate. It is the Worker’s contention that from time to time he raised the issue of his salary with local management but he did not commit anything to writing nor did he invoke the grievance procedure. The issue was formally raised by his Union at his request at a meeting with the Employer in July 2017. As the issue could not be resolved conciliation took place in November 2017. Following this the issue remained unresolved and a claim was then submitted to the Adjudication services of the WRC in December 2017.
SIPTU on behalf of the Worker is seeking to have the payrate of Foreman Fitter Turner applied to the Worker retrospective to April 2012.
Employer Position
The Employer facilitated the Workers return to work following discussion with the Worker. In those discussions the Worker indicated that he did not want to return to the Leixlip Waterworks. The position of Foreman Fitter Turner at that time only existed in the Leixlip plant. The Worker was reassigned initially to Swords Treatment plant and then to Malahide Treatment plant at his original grade of Chargehand Fitter. In September 2012 the Employer advertised the vacancy for a Foreman Fitter Turner in Leixlip. No issue was raised by the worker at that time in relation to the filling of what was previously his post. The Worker was paid as a Chargehand Fitter from his return to work in April 2012. The first time the Employer became aware that there was an issue was when it was raised at a meeting in July 2017 more than 5 years after he had returned to work on the lower salary scale.
It is the Employers position that they facilitated the Workers return to work on terms that he had requested and that the worker had raised no issue in the following five years. Currently there are no vacancies in the role of Foreman Fitter Turner if a vacancy does arise the Worker is eligible to apply in the same manner as everyone else.
Discussion
The Worker could give no explanation for why he had not formally raised a grievance in the five years between 2012 and 2017. The Council, in the course of discussion, informed the Court that they had not moved immediately to fill the post when the Worker returned to work in April 2012 but had waited four months before advertising same. At no time during or after that period had the Worker indicated that he understood himself to be still at the higher grade or that he had an expectation of returning to same.
The Court having considered the detailed submission of both parties and the oral submissions made on the day does not support the Worker’s claim that he is on the wrong payrate. The recommendation of the Adjudication Officer is affirmed and the appeal is disallowed.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Louise O'Donnell
MK______________________
7 September 2018Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Mary Kehoe, Court Secretary.