FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : HEALTH SERVICES EXECUTIVE - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY BUILDING AND ALLIED TRADES UNION) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr McGee Employer Member: Mr Grier Worker Member: Mr Nash |
1. Appeal of Rights Commissioner's Recommendation IR20451/04/JC
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker's substantive post is that of carpenter. In June, 1997, he took up the position of Convenor for the Craft Group of Unions within the then Eastern Region Health Authority. He commenced in the Convenor's position on a part-time basis initially, and on a full-time basis from November 2002 to early 2005 when he reverted to his post of carpenter. The Union is seeking payment for loss of earnings experienced by the worker in his role as Convenor. The Convenor's rate of pay was established by the "McHugh Report" in June, 2003, agreed in February, 2004, and was implemented in April, 2005. The Union claims that the Convenor's position was due to be reviewed in 1998 under the auspices of the Labour Relations Commission (LRC) . A second aspect of the Union's claim is for payment to the worker for the use of his mobile phone in carrying out his duties as a Convenor.
- The dispute was referred to a Rights Commissioner and her recommendation was as follows:
- "For the purpose of clarity I was not asked to address and did not address the issue of the validity of the process that led to the claimant's removal as Convenor.
- I find against the Union's claim for loss of earnings related to potential overtime earnings; loss of on-call payment; stand-by allowance, and mobile phone costs.
- I find that the new rate of pay for the position of Convenor was not agreed until February, 2004 and that the agreement made no provision for the retrospective application of the new rate of pay. However, I find that the McHugh Report, which was issued in June, 2003, acknowledged that the rate of pay for the Convenor needed to be reviewed and in the circumstances I recommend, in full and final settlement of the claims presented to the Rights Commissioner in this case, that the respondent pay the claimant the difference between his substantive craftworker rate and the new rate for the Convenor in respect of the period June 2003 to the date in 2005 when the claimant reverted to his substantive post of Carpenter".
- The Union appealed the recommendation to the Labour Court on the 1st of July, 2005, in accordance with Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 16th of August, 2005.
- The Union appealed the recommendation to the Labour Court on the 1st of July, 2005, in accordance with Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 16th of August, 2005.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Union believes that the difference between the two rates of pay should be paid retrospective to May, 1998, not just to June, 2003. The Convenor's rate of pay was to have been reviewed in 1998 but, due to management's inaction, this did not happen. The worker should not suffer a financial loss because of this inaction.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The worker suffered no loss of earnings. In his secondment role as Convenor he continued to be paid his substantive craftworker rate. On reversion to his position of carpenter in 2005 he continued to be paid the substantive rate.
2. Management is prepared to accept the Rights Commissioner's recommendation although it believes the more appropriate rate for retrospection would be February, 2004.
DECISION:
The Court considers that the recommendation of the Rights Commissioner is appropriate in all the circumstances of the case and, accordingly, upholds it and dismisses the appeal.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Raymond McGee
30th August, 2005______________________
CONDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Ciaran O'Neill, Court Secretary.