Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD94211 Case Number: LCR14504 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: IRISH DAIRY BOARD - and - THREE WORKERS;SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
(1) Claim by a worker for a deputising allowance; (2) Claims by two workers for assimilation.
Recommendation:
The Court has considered the submissions from the parties and
recommends as follows in relation to the two items in dispute:-
1. Deputising Claim
The Court has concluded that the claimant did not carry out
the full range of duties with their attendant
responsibilities. Accordingly, the Court does not recommend
concession of the Union's claim that he be paid the
Laboratory Manager's rate. Whilst noting that he was given
the benefit of double increments which he retains the Court,
nevertheless, in the exceptional circumstances, recommends
that he be paid an ex-gratia sum of #1,000.
2. Assimilation Claims
The Court does not find grounds for recommending concession
of these two claims.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Brennan Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD94211 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14504
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES:
IRISH DAIRY BOARD
(REPRESENTED BY THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS CONFEDERATION)
AND
THREE WORKERS
(REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION)
SUBJECT:
1. (1) Claim by a worker for a deputising allowance;
(2) Claims by two workers for assimilation.
BACKGROUND:
2. The dispute concerns two claims on behalf of three
technicians employed by the Company in the Quality Assurance
Laboratory in Moorepark, Fermoy, Co. Cork. The Chemistry
Laboratory is managed by the Chemist and currently has four
laboratory technicians. The Bacteriology Laboratory is
managed by the Bacteriologist and has two technicians.
First Claim:
In 1983, the Bacteriologist was promoted to Laboratory
Manager. The Union claims that the Senior Laboratory
Technician undertook the full duties and responsibilities of
the Bacteriologist until May 1986, but that he was not paid
accordingly. A new Bacteriologist was appointed in May 1986.
Second Claim:
Technician A was employed on a temporary basis in May 1987
with a starting wage of #120 per week. She was made
permanent in May, 1991 at which time her salary was #14,315
per year. The Union claims that she was not on the correct
point of the salary scale for the four years (1987 - 1991).
As a result she was underpaid by a total of #11,292. From
July to December, 1988 she was contracted by the Company to
work at Mitchelstown Co-op. The Co-op paid her travelling
expenses.
Technician B was employed in March, 1988 on a temporary
basis, on a salary of #120 per week. She was made permanent
in March, 1992 on a salary of #13,813 per year. The Union
claims that she was underpaid for the four years (1988-1992)
by a total of #4,500.
The dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commission
and a conciliation conference took place on 10th March, 1994.
No agreement was reached and the dispute was referred to the
Labour Court under Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations
Act, 1990 on 13th April, 1994. A Labour Court hearing took
place on 27th May, 1994.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Company operates the following policy regarding
staff deputising under certain conditions. It is contained
in the Personnel Policy Handbook:
CLAUSE 11.4
Allowance for Performing Duties of a Higher Grade
In normal circumstances staff are expected to deputise
in the absence on sick leave, holidays etc., of more
senior colleagues. No special payment will be made to
staff in such circumstances.
Where, however, the full responsibilities of a higher
graded post are assumed for a continuous period in
excess of six weeks, the person undertaking the extra
duties and responsibilities will be eligible for an
acting allowance.
The amount of the allowance will normally equate to the
difference in salary occasioned by a promotion to the
grade concerned. Higher grade substitutions must be
formally authorised to qualify for the above.
There was no Bacteriologist in the laboratory from July 1983
to May 1986. The Senior Laboratory Technician took over all
of the work and most of the responsibility of the former
Bacteriologist. He was responsible for the organisation and
allocation of work, which had increased for the years 1983 -
1986. He was responsible for the supervision of temporary
staff. The only responsibility he did not have was "the
signing" off of paper work.
2. The worker did receive double increment for the years
1983 - 1986. This was in recognition of the quality of his
work. It was not a deputising allowance. The worker should
have received a total of #10,896 as a deputising allowance.
3. Second Claim:
It is a Company policy to pay salaries which:
"recognise the experience and qualifications appropriate
to the position".
Claimant A had a B.S.c Degree and ten years of experience.
She was brought in to fill the vacancy of a full time staff
member. She was expected from day one to fulfil all the
duties of a Laboratory Technician but was not paid the
appropriate rate. She was only made permanent and given the
appropriate rate after four years. Her total loss of
earnings (details supplied to the Court) is #11,992.
4. Claimant B had a B.S.c Degree and three years experience
She was employed on a temporary basis for four years. She was
not placed on the appropriate salary point until she was made
permanent. She was underpaid by a total of #4,500 (details
supplied to the Court).
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. Deputising allowances are due only if the claimant
assumes "full responsibility of a higher graded post". The
worker concerned only assumed partial responsibility of the
Bacteriologist's duties. He was rewarded with double
increments for the years 1983 - 1986 in recognition of his
extra duties.
2. Claimant A and B were paid the appropriate salary for
the temporary work done by them. Their relevant experience
was taken into account. Both claimants accepted the salaries
offered to them. There is no valid claim for retrospective
payment.
3. Both claims (deputising and assimilation) are cost
increasing and, as such, are contrary to the terms of the
P.E.S.P. and P.C.W.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has considered the submissions from the parties and
recommends as follows in relation to the two items in dispute:-
1. Deputising Claim
The Court has concluded that the claimant did not carry out
the full range of duties with their attendant
responsibilities. Accordingly, the Court does not recommend
concession of the Union's claim that he be paid the
Laboratory Manager's rate. Whilst noting that he was given
the benefit of double increments which he retains the Court,
nevertheless, in the exceptional circumstances, recommends
that he be paid an ex-gratia sum of #1,000.
2. Assimilation Claims
The Court does not find grounds for recommending concession
of these two claims.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
14th July, 1994 Evelyn Owens
C.O.N./M.M. __________________
Deputy Chairperson
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Ciaran O'Neill, Court Secretary.