Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD92334 Case Number: AD92182 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: IRISH LEAGUE OF CREDIT UNIONS - and - MANUFACTURING SCIENCE FINANCE |
Appeal by the League against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation No. ST102/92 concerning compensatory payment to a worker.
Recommendation:
8. The Court has considered all of the views of the parties as
expressed in their oral and written submissions. In all the
circumstances the Court considers the issue should be finally
resolved by the payment to the complainant of #1500 nett. The
Rights Commissioners Recommendation should be amended accordingly.
The Court so decides.
Division: MrMcGrath Mr Brennan Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD92334 APPEAL DECISION NO. AD18292
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS 1946 TO 1990
APPEAL DECISIONS SECTION 13(9) INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1969
PARTIES: IRISH LEAGUE OF CREDIT UNIONS
AND
MANUFACTURING SCIENCE FINANCE
SUBJECT:
1. Appeal by the League against Rights Commissioner's
Recommendation No. ST102/92 concerning compensatory payment to a
worker.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Irish League of Credit Unions is the service organisation
for 513 credit unions in Ireland. It employs 31 staff at its
Office in Rathfarnham, Dublin. The workers are covered by three
salary levels i.e. field officers, executive assistants and
clerical/clerk typists. In addition there is another level of
staff known as second level which consists of three workers.
3. A salary scale for this category was put in place in 1981
retrospective to 1979. The workers were placed on the maximum of
the scale. Subsequently two of the workers left and their
replacements were put on points further down the scale.
4. In April, 1991 the workers lodged a claim for an increase in
salary on the basis that their duties and responsibilities had
increased over the years. During the course of the negotiations
the worker concerned in this claim sought compensation as he had
received no incremental increases since 1979. In November, 1991
the League offered a phased increase of 14.4% on the salary scales
and an offer of #2.000 nett. This offer was subsequently amended
to 15% and #2,000 gross. The salary increase was accepted and the
parties agreed to refer the 1979 issue to a Rights Commissioner
for investigation and recommendation. The Rights Commissioner
investigated the dispute on 16th April, 1992 and issued the
following findings and recommendation on 12th May, 1992:
1. "The sum involved is by the standards of pay enjoyed by
the League Employees a relativity small sum.
2. Clearly there is a matter of high principle involved for
both parties and in these circumstances it was not possible
to achieve an agreed settlement.
3. I am satisfied that the League Officers acted in good
faith all through the difficult negotiations with the Union
despite the withdrawal of service at the meeting on Saturday,
7th December, 1991.
4. In my view the Union has done an excellent job for its
members concerned and the League has met the claims presented
(which were significant) in a most reasonable manner despite
having to have the support of an approval of the fifteen
Directors.
5. However subsequent events may not obscure the fact that
on the 30/11/91 the Board generously offered the claimant
#2,000 net to settle the "1979" issue. The increase of 0.6%
on scale to the staff generous as it was on top of the 14.4%
increase offered previously may not in my view justify a
reduction in the offer to the claimant on foot of his
personal claim relating to the "1979" issue.
6. Having made this point it is however justifiable to
deduct the equivalent of his 0.6% increase from the #2,000
nett originally offered - he should not have to pay for his
colleagues' 0.6% increase.
I therefore recommend that the claimant receives #2,000 nett
less #141 (equivalent to 0.6% of his annual salary) in full
and final settlement of his claim. In conclusion I wish to
extend my thanks to the League for the provision of one of
the best submissions I have ever received in terms of its
detail, breadth and clarity and which was of great assistance
to me."
5. The League appealed the Rights Commissioner's Recommendation
to the Labour Court under Section 13(9) of the Industrial
Relations Act, 1969. The Court heard the appeal on 25th
June, 1992.
LEAGUE'S ARGUMENTS:
6. 1. The worker was more interested in securing a higher
percentage increase on behalf of himself and his colleagues
than receiving compensation in respect of the 1979 issue.
2. The Union did not mention the 1979 issue during the
course of its negotiations.
3. The Rights Commissioner's Recommendation has failed to
take into account the knock-on effect of the .6% increase to
the worker's two colleagues for this year and future years.
4. In the absence of a claim from the Union on the 1979
issue the League increased their offer on the salary scale to
15% and made a new offer of #2,000 gross to the worker in
view of the workers' preferred choice of a larger percentage
increase.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
7. 1. The League made an offer of #2,000 nett in respect of
the 1979 issue which was acceptable to the Union and
negotiations proceeded on the percentage increase on
salaries.
2. Following agreement on the salary increase the Union
sought the payment of #2,000 compensation to the worker which
was previously agreed. This figure is reasonable in the
circumstances where increments could have averaged between
#400/#600 over a twelve year period.
3. The current League offer of #2,000 gross would nett the
worker #885 and is not acceptable. The Union believes the
Rights Commissioner's Recommendation to be fair and
reasonable under the circumstances and asks the Court to
uphold same.
DECISION:
8. The Court has considered all of the views of the parties as
expressed in their oral and written submissions. In all the
circumstances the Court considers the issue should be finally
resolved by the payment to the complainant of #1500 nett. The
Rights Commissioners Recommendation should be amended accordingly.
The Court so decides.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
23rd July, 1992. Tom McGrath
M.D./M.H. -------------------------------
Deputy Chairman.