Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD89805 Case Number: AD903 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: CONCERN - and - MANUFACTURING SCIENCE AND FINANCE |
Appeal by the Union against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation BC204/89 concerning a claim for compensation for additional responsibilities.
Recommendation:
6. Having considered the submissions made by the parties, the
Court is of the opinion that the Rights Commissioner's
Recommendation should stand.
The Court so decides.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr Collins Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD89805 APPEAL DECISION NO. AD390
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 13(9)
PARTIES: CONCERN
AND
MANUFACTURING SCIENCE AND FINANCE
SUBJECT:
1. Appeal by the Union against Rights Commissioner's
Recommendation BC204/89 concerning a claim for compensation for
additional responsibilities.
BACKGROUND:
2. Concern is a non-denominational, non-profit, voluntary
organisation devoted to the relief, assistance and advancement of
people in need in less developed areas of the world. The worker
concerned began working with Concern in November, 1984, when she
went to Bangladesh as a volunteer nurse-midwife. She became a
field officer (supervisor) for health work a little over a year
later. She returned to Ireland in June, 1986, some months before
the end of her contract due to the recurrence of an old back
injury. Concern subsequently employed her as a development
officer in the department responsible for fund raising from
September, 1986 to September, 1987. At her own request she then
left Concern to undertake development studies. Concern invited
her to apply for a study grant and in due course a grant of #3,250
was made to her. She was advised that Concern would be happy to
re-employ her after her course if she agreed to a contract for at
least a further year's service. She completed her studies in
August, 1988 and was re-employed as a development officer in
Concern's Overseas Volunteer Department. This department had
previously been staffed by a Head of Department (who reported to
the Head of the Overseas Division) and a secretary. Between
August, 1988 and August, 1989, it was staffed by the claimant (who
reported directly to the Head of Overseas Division), an
administrative assistant and a secretary. It was the only
department within Concern where a development officer reported to
a Division Head. Management claim that this was because the
department was under review at that time and therefore the post of
Department Head was not filled (the department in question has
since been abolished). In November/December, 1988, the worker
concerned complained to Management that she was being inadequately
remunerated for the additional responsibilities she had
undertaken. Following discussions among Management, she was
offered an increase of two increments on her pay scale (equal to
#520). She rejected this and referred the matter to the Union.
Management subsequently withdrew its offer of the salary
enhancement. Further local level discussions failed to resolve
the dispute and the matter was referred to a Rights Commissioner
for investigation and recommendation.
3. The Rights Commissioner, having investigated the dispute on
the 24th July, 1989, issued the following findings and
recommendation on the 11th August:-
Having investigated the matter and having given full and
careful consideration to the points made by both parties, I
have come to the following conclusions:-
- I am satisfied that there is some merit in the claim
for compensation for additional responsibilities.
- I take this view since I am clear in my mind that
additional responsibilities over and above the broad
range generic to development officers have been
undertaken by the worker concerned.
- I do not accept the contention of the trade union
that the provision of a car can be justified and I
believe that the attempt to link her salary to that
of the Department Manager is unsustainable.
- I note that the Chief Executive did offer a salary
adjustment equivalent to #520 and this was
subsequently withdrawn.
In the light of the above I recommend that the original offer
of #520 be increased to #1,200 and that this refers only to
the period of the 1st August, 1988 to the 31st July, 1989.
This Recommendation was rejected by the Union on the grounds that
the amount awarded was insufficient and was appealed to the Labour
Court under Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969.
Subsequent to the recommendation being issued, Concern again
offered to increase the worker's salary by #520 but she again
rejected this. A Court hearing was held on the 19th December,
1989. At the hearing Management informed the Court that it also
rejected the Rights Commissioner's Recommendation.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. Prior to August, 1988 the Overseas Volunteer Department
was staffed by a Head of Department (who reported to the Head
of the Overseas Division) and a secretary. Between August,
1988 and August, 1989 it was staffed by a development officer
(the claimant), who reported to the Head of the Overseas
Division, an administrative assistant and a secretary. It was
the only department within Concern where a development officer
reported to a Division Head. In all other departments,
development officers reported to a Department Head who in turn
reported to a Division Head. The claimant's work included
many activities formerly undertaken by Heads of Department
(details supplied to the Court).
2. In February, 1989 staff were notified that a new
department, Personnel and Training Department, would come into
existence from the 1st August, 1989. The functions of the
Department would encompass those of the Overseas Volunteer
Department. It would be staffed by the staff of the Overseas
Volunteer Department and a Department Head who would report to
the Head of Home Division. The Union contends that this
re-organisation was a direct result of the impasse reached
regarding the worker's claim.
3. The basic managerial salary is #16,300 per annum, #2,000
comprising of motor expenses. As Department and Division
Heads do less travelling in the course of their work than
development officers in Concern's Education or Development
Departments, the Union would argue that this sum is payment in
kind rather than a provision to facilitate their work.
MANAGEMENT'S ARGUMENTS:
5. 1. Concern employs development officers in five departments.
Their duties vary widely depending on the particular work
carried out by the department. With very few exceptions they
hold third level qualifications. Ten of the present fifteen
development officers (not including the claimant) are holders
of University degrees. Development officer is a category from
which Concern seeks to recruit its management staff for home
and for overseas assignment. Development officers may be
moved between departments or assigned overseas. This is
common practice and in all cases involves significant changes
in duties.
2. It was explained to the claimant that the department was
under radical review and that even if a Department Head was to
be appointed, she would not be considered for the position.
3. The claimant is the most highly paid of Concern's fifteen
development officers while being neither the most qualified
nor longest serving.