FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : POE KIELY HOGAN, SOLICITORS - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Keogh Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Appeal against the Rights Commissioner's Recommendation IR158/98.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker commenced employment with the Company in October, 1995 as a secretary to the Finance Manager. She subsequently had responsibility for training staff on a new computer system when it was introduced into the office at the end of 1996.
The worker claims that she is entitled to a substantial wage increase in view of her duties and responsibilities as Systems Administrator.
The employer rejects the worker's claim and states that the clerical staff were all flexible and treated equally within the organisation. It claimed that the worker's role was no greater or less than other staff members.
The dispute was the subject of a Rights Commissioner's hearing which took place on the 18th of May, 1998. The following is the Rights Commissioner's Recommendation:-
"I recommend that the Firm offers and the worker accepts
an allowance of 20% of her basic salary from April, 1997
in respect of her "special duties" for as long as they are
required."
The employer appealed the recommendation to the Labour Court on the 15th of July, 1998 in accordance with Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place in Waterford on the 24th of September, 1998.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. In September, 1996, the worker applied for a vacancy which arose in the Litigation Department for a Secretary to join the Litigation Team. The worker was asked by management to withdraw her application as the Company had plans which would be of more benefit to her.
2. The worker is seeking a substantial salary increase to reflect the duties and responsibilities of her post as Systems Administrator.
3. There will be no knock-on effects should the claim be conceded.
EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The secretarial staff are all flexible and treated equally. Management does not accept that the worker's job entails greater skills or responsibility.
2. The role of the claimant is no greater or less than that of the rest of the clerical staff.
3. The worker does not possess any particular computer qualifications nor has she received any more formal training than that extended to other secretarial/clerical staff.
4. Flexibility is expected of all employees. The claimant's current duties are consistent with this general flexibility.
DECISION:
Having carefully considered the submissions of the parties the Court finds no reason to change the Rights Commissioner's Recommendation.
The Court so decides.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
7th October, 1998______________________
L.W./D.T.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Larry Wisely, Court Secretary.