Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD9499 Case Number: AD9498 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: UNIVERSITY COLLEGE GALWAY - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Appeal by the Union against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation No. ST382/93.
Recommendation:
The Court has fully considered all of the views expressed by the
parties in their oral and written submissions together with the
details of the circumstances in which the allowance was paid.
It is the finding of the Court that grounds have not been adduced
to warrant amendment of the Rights Commissioner's recommendation.
Accordingly, the Court upholds the Rights Commissioner's
recommendation and rejects the appeal of the claimant.
The Court so decides.
Division: Mr McGrath Mr Keogh Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD9499 APPEAL DECISION NO. AD9894
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES:
UNIVERSITY COLLEGE GALWAY
(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. ST382/93.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker concerned is employed in an administrative /
clerical post (Grade 3) in the Registrar's Office of
University College Galway (U.C.G.). In 1986 the College
requested and the worker agreed to take on extra duties to
help towards the smooth operation of work within the
Registrar's office. An allowance was paid in respect of
these duties. The allowance ceased in June, 1987. The Union
claimed that the duties were still being performed by the
worker. It submitted a claim for the annualisation of the
allowance and its incorporation into the worker's salary for
the years 1989 to 1993 inclusive. Management rejected the
claim. The dispute was referred to a Rights Commissioner for
investigation and recommendation. On the 12th of January,
1994 the Rights Commissioner issued his recommendation as
follows:-
"On the evidence presented I have to recommend that the
claim for the "annualisation of the allowance" fails.
However I am satisfied that a reasonable case exists for
payment to her of the allowance for the period 1/7/1987
to the 1/2/88 when she went out sick for 13 months. In
addition and as a direct consequence of payment to
1/2/88 (as recommended above) she is entitled to the
payment for the period of maternity leave from August,
1988 to November, 1988 and I so recommend."
On the 3rd February, 1994 the Union appealed the
recommendation to the Labour Court. The Court heard the
appeal in Galway on the 14th December, 1994 (the earliest
date suitable to the parties).
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The additional duties have not only continued through
the period involved (1989-1993) but have grown in terms
of volume and quality. In granting the worker concerned
the allowance the College recognised the value of the
additional duties. In view of the fact that the duties
have since continued unabated there is no valid reason
for the College to refuse payment.
2. The question of the Job Evaluation Scheme (J.E.S.) is
irrelevant as it can only decide matters for the future
and cannot take account of the past years in which the
additional quality work was performed.
3. The Job Evaluation Scheme should not result in a loss of
pay to the claimant. The allowance should only be
subsumed into the Grade 3 salary from the date on which
the evaluation result takes effect i.e. the end of the
appeal process.
COLLEGE'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. A member of the administrative staff was assigned to the
Registrar's Officer in March 1987 and undertook some of
the work performed by the claimant. Additional
secretarial help was also afforded to the office. The
Rights Commissioner's recommendation which provides for
compensation for the limited period is reasonable. Such
a payment should more than adequately satisfy the
worker.
2. The post of the claimant was evaluated in 1993 in
accordance with an agreed Job Evaluation Scheme (details
supplied to the Court). The Appeals Committee decided
in December 1993 that the post should remain at Grade 3.
Since the J.E.S. considers all aspects of a job and
determines the appropriate grade on this basis, the
payment of an additional allowance in respect of the
duties outlined in the job description is not
appropriate.
3. The revised grading structure and the J.E.S. involved
further salary scale progression for postholders in
Administrative Grades 1 - 5. As a post holder on the
maximum of Grade 3 the claimant benefited from salary
advances giving her payment on the higher Grade 4 scale
as from 1st January, 1990. She is currently on Point 4
of the Grade 4 scale and has effectively been
remunerated at a rate equivalent to a Grade 4 post since
January, 1990.
DECISION:
The Court has fully considered all of the views expressed by the
parties in their oral and written submissions together with the
details of the circumstances in which the allowance was paid.
It is the finding of the Court that grounds have not been adduced
to warrant amendment of the Rights Commissioner's recommendation.
Accordingly, the Court upholds the Rights Commissioner's
recommendation and rejects the appeal of the claimant.
The Court so decides.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
3rd January, 1995 Tom McGrath
T.O'D./D.T. _______________
Deputy Chairman