FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : UCD - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Ms Cryan Worker Member: Mr McCarthy |
1. Technical Officer Grade (Permanency & Retrospection).
BACKGROUND:
2. The case before the Court concerns a dispute between the Employer and the Union in relation to the permanent appointment of three Senior Laboratory Attendants to the Technical Officer grade. The Union on behalf of its members is seeking permanency in the Technical Officer grade and the retrospective application of the associated terms and conditions of employment dating back to the specific time when each Claimant had successfully completed the requisite two years post-qualification experience. The Employer contends that it is not in a financial position to retrospectively regrade the Claimants to the Technical Officer grade from the time of completion of post-qualification experience to the present date, however it is willing to place the Claimants on the Technical Officer pay scale with effect from January, 2015.The dispute could not be resolved at local level and was the subject of a Conciliation Conference under the auspices of the Labour Relations Commission. As agreement was not reached, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 14th September, 2015 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 12th November, 2015.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Claimants have been treated in an inequitable manner by the Employer as a result of its refusal to retrospectively regrade them to the Technical Officer grade.
2. The Union is relying on the context of Labour Court Recommendation No. 19539 issued by the Court in May, 2009 which dealt with the regrading of Veterinary Nurses to the Technical Officer Grade.
3. The Union on behalf of its members is seeking full retrospection to the individual periods in time when its members completed two years post-qualification experience.
EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Employer contends that it has previously expressed its willingness to place the Claimants on the Technical Officer scale, retrospectively from January, 2015.
2. The Employer asserts that it is not in a financial position to retrospectively regrade the Claimants for any period of time prior to January, 2015.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court notes that it is agreed between the parties that this dispute has come before it under the terms of theClause 4.1 of the Public Service Stability Agreement 2013-2018 (The Lansdowne Road Agreement)and the Decision of the Court is binding on the parties.
The matter before the Court concerns a claim by the Union on behalf of three Claimants employed on temporary contracts on the Laboratory Assistant Grade, who seek (i) to be made permanent, and (ii) to be retrospectively assimilated on the Technical Officer grade.
Management placed the three Claimants on the Technical Officer grade with effect from 15thJanuary 2015 and at the hearing before the Court it confirmed that the Claimants in question now have permanent status with the University.
Therefore the only issue before the Court concerns the retrospective application of the Technical Officer scale. Having considered the oral and written submissions of the parties the Court recommends that the Claimants should be paid a sum of €10,000 each in respect of the retrospection claim. The Court recommends that this payment should be paid within four weeks of the date of this Recommendation.
The Court so decides.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
2nd December 2015______________________
SCDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Sharon Cahill, Court Secretary.