Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD94663 Case Number: AD9527 Section / Act: S13(9) Parties: UNIVERSITY COLLEGE GALWAY - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Appeal of Rights Commissioner's Recommendation No. BC 196/94.
Recommendation:
The Court considered the written and oral submissions made by both
parties.
The Court noted the statements made in relation to the claimant's
contribution to the College over a period of years.
However, the Court agrees with the Rights Commissioner's
Recommendation that the agreement in relation to the grading
structure effectively rules out the issue of retrospection for the
claimant.
The Court, therefore, upholds the Rights Commissioner's
Recommendation and rejects the appeal.
The Court so decides.
Division: Mr Flood Mr McHenry Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD94663 APPEAL DECISION NO. AD2795
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 of Rights Commissioner's Recommendation No. BC 196/94.
BACKGROUND:
2. The dispute concerns one worker, a Student Councillor within
the Administrative Section of the College. The Union claims
that he is entitled to the application of retrospection of
the financial implication of his upgrading. A job evaluation
agreement was reached, in principle, between the parties in
1990 and was signed in March, 1992. The Union claims that
the agreement is specifically silent on the issue of
retrospection. The College's position is that the agreement
of 1990 indicated that "the agreement will take effect from
the date agreement is reached under Clause 4.1....", i.e.,
March 1992. The dispute was the subject of an investigation
by a Rights Commissioner, who found that he was "compelled to
regard as definitive the statement of July 1990, that the
grading structure would take effect from the date agreement
is reached under Clause 4.1". He rejected the claim for
retrospection. The Rights Commissioner's Recommendation was
appealed by the Union on the 10th of November, 1994. The
Court heard the appeal, in Galway, on the 1st March, 1995.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The worker's claim has been supported by the findings of
a management consultant (Hywel John) appointed by the
employer. His evaluation was not accorded sufficient
"weight in the scheme of things" by the Rights
Commissioner.
2. There is a belief amongst staff that the College delays
the settlement of issues and benefits accordingly. This
dispute is a case in point.
3. The worker has the respect of his colleagues and,
probably, the college management team. This respect
should be translated into financial benefit for him.
4. There are only two similar cases in the College and
there would not be any great implication or
consequential claims if the worker's appeal was upheld.
COLLEGE'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Agreement implementation date, as agreed between the
parties in July 1990, took effect in March 1992.
2. The claim is, in effect, a group claim using the
mechanism of a test case. The cost implication would be
enormous for the College.
3. There is no possible way of red-circling the worker and
offering him something greater than his colleagues who
benefited from upgrading.
DECISION:
The Court considered the written and oral submissions made by both
parties.
The Court noted the statements made in relation to the claimant's
contribution to the College over a period of years.
However, the Court agrees with the Rights Commissioner's
Recommendation that the agreement in relation to the grading
structure effectively rules out the issue of retrospection for the
claimant.
The Court, therefore, upholds the Rights Commissioner's
Recommendation and rejects the appeal.
The Court so decides.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
4th April, 1995 Finbarr Flood
M.K./M.M. _______________
Deputy Chairman