FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : DUBLIN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY - AND - MANUFACTURING SCIENCE FINANCE DIVISION : Chairman: Employer Member: Worker Member: |
1. Dispute concerning the alleged non payment of increments to a worker.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker concerned commenced employment as a temporary technician in the carpentry and joinery department in 1982. He was placed on the first point of the salary scale but did not receive increments. The Union claimed that the worker should have been paid increments and should now be placed on the penultimate point of the salary scale with effect from the 1st February, 1996. The Union also claimed that the worker should also be paid a lump sum in lieu of retrospection. Management rejected the claim. On the 22nd May, 1996 the Union referred the dispute to the Labour Court under Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969 and agreed to be bound by the Court's recommendation. A Court hearing was held on the 23rd September, 1996.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. At the time of the worker's appointment an agreement was in place, since 1977, which related to the employment of temporary technicians and provided that:
(1) they would be suitably qualified
(2) they would be employed for a fixed period of time
(3) they would be placed on technician's scale
(4) prior notice would be given to union representatives
There was no agreement as to what constituted suitable qualifications. It was assumed Management accepted that the worker was suitably qualified.
2. It is unreasonable for the Institute to withhold increments on the basis of qualifications. Management exploited the public service embargo by employing technicians on low wages. The worker has 14 years service. He was sought out by Management for the post and never interviewed. Terms and conditions of employment were not explained to the worker. He understood that he was employed on technicians' terms.
3. In 1990 the Labour Court recommended that suitably qualified temporary technicians should qualify for increments on the commencement of their third year of service (LCR 12855 refers).
4. The worker is the only technician in the employment in this position therefore there is no possibility of a precedent being set. There is a substantial difference between the first and top points of the salary scale and the worker has suffered a very significant loss over the years by being placed on point one and receiving no increments.
5. The worker is approaching retirement age and his pension will not exceed 15/80ths. It is essential that some consideration should be given to the effect on his pension.
DIT'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. Prior to 1990 temporary technicians did not receive increments and were always remunerated at point one of the salary scale. At the time of the worker's appointment temporary staff were not issued with written terms and conditions of employment however the worker was informed at different times by Management that he would be paid at point one of the salary scale.
2. Permission was sought to fill the post on a permanent basis but sanction was refused by the Department of Education because of the Government embargo. The worker was ineligible to compete for a permanent post as he does not hold the appropriate academic qualifications. He continued therefore to hold the post on a temporary basis.
3. In 1990 the Union submitted a claim to the Court for incremental credit for 5 temporary technicians (including the claimant). The Court recommended that "qualified temporary technicians ................................" should qualify for increments. The City of Dublin Vocational Educational Committee, under whose aegis the Institute operated at that time, applied the recommendation to the 4 qualified temporary technicians but could not apply it to the worker because he was not suitably qualified.
4. Concession of the claim is likely to have serious repercussions in other areas of the public service.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court having fully considered all of the issues raised by the parties in their oral and written submissions finds that, given the specific circumstances of this case, the claimant should be paid at the penultimate point of the technician scale.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Tom McGrath
4th November, 1996______________________
T.O'D./S.G.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Tom O'Dea, Court Secretary.