FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2001 SECTION 20(1); INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT; 1969 PARTIES : IRISH SOCIETY FOR THE PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS (REPRESENTED BY THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Carberry Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. (1) Breach of agreement on promotional post and (2) Salary structure for Manager.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Society was founded in 1949. It has responsibility for animal welfare. In 1986, the Control of Dogs' Act was introduced making it compulsory for Local Authorities to provide a dog pound and a dog warden service. The Society provides this service on behalf of the Local Authorities.
The worker concerned was employed as a Dog Warden Administrator. In 1998, she was offered the post of Dog Warden Service Manager on a salary of £30,000 per annum, but she requested a salary of £38,000 per annum. However, she accepted the post subject to a satisfactory settlement on the salary issue.
In early 2000, the Irish Productivity Centre carried out a review of the Society's operations. Its recommendation included, the appointment of a new Chief Executive, the creation of a development plan and re-structuring of staff.
In July, 2001, a new Chief Executive was appointed and on foot of the Irish Productivity Centre's report decided that the Society needed to be re-structured. As a result, the Dog Warden Service Manager no longer exists.
The issue of salary was the subject of two conciliation conferences. As agreement was not reached, both parties agreed to refer the issue to the Labour Court. However, the Society requested that the hearing should not go ahead as the post no longer existed and salary was no longer an issue.
The Union on behalf of the worker concerned referred the matter to the Labour Court on the 8th of August, 2001, under Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 23rd of August, 2001. The Union agreed to be bound by the Court's recommendation.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The salary for the post of Dog Warden Service Manager should commence at £38,000 per annum. The previous Manager received the same salary as the Chief Executive and also had a Company car.
2. The worker concerned excelled herself. She carried out work for the Society over and above the call of duty. She deputised for the Manager over the years.
3. The Society made a job offer to the worker which should be honoured at a salary of £38,000.
SOCIETY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Society should be allowed to restructure its staff.
2. The job offer could not have been accepted as the salary issue remained unresolved. The Society is not in breach of any agreement.
3. Even if the worker concerned had taken up the post when it was offered, she would now be redundant as the post of Dog Warden Service Manager no longer exists.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court is satisfied that the claimant was offered the post of Manager of the Society's dog warden service. Whilst final agreement had not been concluded due to differences as to the appropriate salary level for the post, the Society had agreed at conciliation to a joint referral of that issue to the Court.
Against this background the claimant was entitled to expect that the offer of promotion would remain open until the Court's recommendations were issued and decided upon by both parties. The claimant could also have reasonably believed that final agreement, on which she could take up the management post offered, would have resulted from the Court's recommendation on the pay issue.
The Court accepts that the Society was entitled to reconsider the type of management structure it wished to put in place. However, in so doing it failed to take account of the prior commitments made to the claimant and its obligations, in an industrial relations sense, to fulfil those commitments.
In all the circumstances of this case the Court recommends that the society should pay the claimant compensation for loss of the promotional post offered in the amount of £15,000 (19,046.07 Euro). The Court further recommends that the parties should jointly seek to identify ways of enhancing the claimant's current post so as to fully utilise her acknowledged skill and experience.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
17th September, 2001______________________
GB/CCDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Gerardine Buckley, Court Secretary.