Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD94349 Case Number: AD9480 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: SHANNON DEVELOPMENT - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Appeal by the Union against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation No. CW114/94 concerning a claim by a worker of an entitlement to a higher grade on return from secondment.
Recommendation:
Having considered the submissions from the parties the Court is of
the view that the sum recommended by the Rights Commissioner
should be increased to #6,000 in full settlement of the dispute.
The Court accordingly upholds the appeal to that extent and so
decides.
Division: Ms Owens Mr McHenry Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD94349 APPEAL DECISION NO. AD8094
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES:
SHANNON DEVELOPMENT
(REPRESENTED BY THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS CONFEDERATION)
AND
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Appeal by the Union against Rights Commissioner's
Recommendation No. CW114/94 concerning a claim by a worker of
an entitlement to a higher grade on return from secondment.
BACKGROUND:
2. 1. The Company is a state-sponsored organisation with
statutory responsibilities for industrial, tourism and
rural development in the Mid-West. The Company employs
200 workers. It's executive/management grading
structure comprises of six grades, ranging from E5 (most
junior grade) to E1 (most senior level). The
appropriate grading for each post is established by a
system of job evaluation which is co-ordinated by a
steering group.
2. In January, 1988, the worker was assigned to the post of
Product Development Manager - Tourism Division at a
grading of E3A. The position was upgraded to E3B during
a restructuring in March 1988. The worker was
dissatisfied with the upgrading and in appealing the
decision sought that the post to be upgraded to E1. On
1st July, 1988, the worker was seconded to a position of
Director of Treaty 300. The terms of the worker's
secondment were outlined in a letter of 16th June, 1988.
The letter confirmed that during his secondment the
worker would retain his grading, salary and benefits and
that he would receive a secondment allowance of #3,000.
The letter also stated that the worker would return to a
suitable position in the Company.
3. In July, 1992, the worker rejoined the Company as
Product Promotions and Services Manager the post was
graded at his old grade of E3B. Prior to his return,
the worker had notified the Company that he expected to
return to an E1 grade as per a verbal commitment of the
Managing Director (since retired) at the time of his
secondment. The worker further argued that his old
position had been upgraded to E1 in his absence.
4. The Company rejected the worker's claim. Following
unsuccessful local meetings, the claim was referred to
the Rights Commissioners Service and an investigation
took place on 13th April, 1994. The Rights
Commissioner's Recommendation CW114/94 as follows was
issued on 25th May, 1994:-
"I recommend that the Company offers and the worker
accepts the sum of #4,500 in settlement of this
dispute."
5. By letter dated 20th June, 1994, the Union appealed
against the Recommendation under Section 13(9) of the
Industrial Relations Act, 1969. The Labour Court heard
the appeal in Limerick on 3rd November, 1994.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. Prior to his secondment the worker was given an absolute
assurance that should his post be upgraded in his
absence that he would return to the job on the new
grade. It was further agreed that for the period of his
secondment, the worker would receive a compensation
amount of #3,000. This was the difference between the
E3B and E1 scales. It was only on the basis of these
assurances that the worker acceded to the Company's
request and accepted the secondment.
2. The Company's commitment to the worker is clear. The
worker had no reason to doubt the word of his then
Managing Director. It was reasonable to assume that the
Company would honour its obligation towards him. The
then Managing Director has re-stated his commitment to
the worker in a memo of 7th March, 1992. It is
incontrovertible that a specific agreement was made.
3. The Union has established that there was an agreement
and the Company is obliged to honour it. The Rights
Commissioner's findings can only have validity if there
was any dispute between the parties to the agreement as
to its nature or degree. This is not the case. The
Union rejects the Rights Commissioner's Recommendation.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The worker was seconded from the Company in accordance
with the terms set out in the Company's letter to the
worker of 16th June, 1988. In the letter the Comapny
never referred to an E1 grade. It referred only to the
fact that the worker's current grade and salary would be
retained. This has been honoured in full. The worker's
secondment was on standard terms. It has never been the
Company's practice for workers to benefit from
subsequent upgradings of previous positions. The
secondment allowance of #3,000 did not equal the E3B/E1
differential which was #1,400 in 1988 terms.
2. The Company has honoured fully the terms of its letter
and it has no case to answer. The worker can only be
upgraded to the E1 grade if he successfully applies for
an E1 position or if his existing post is evaluated and
graded at E1. If the worker was to be upgraded on any
other basis it would discredit the Company's agreed
evaluation/grading system.
3. The Company's letter of 16th June, 1988 is the only
written record of the terms of the secondment. It is
conclusive and must outweigh any possible verbal
understanding between individuals.
DECISION:
Having considered the submissions from the parties the Court is of
the view that the sum recommended by the Rights Commissioner
should be increased to #6,000 in full settlement of the dispute.
The Court accordingly upholds the appeal to that extent and so
decides.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
5th November, 1994 Evelyn Owens
J.F./D.T. ____________
Chairman
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Jerome Forde, Court Secretary.