FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2001 SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : ACC BANK (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY AMALGAMATED TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION) DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Grier Worker Member: Mr. Somers |
1. Appeal of a Rights Commissioners Recommendation IR14436/03/JH.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Union's claim relates to the failure of management to carry out a job evaluation on the worker and the resulting impact on her voluntary severance/retirement terms. The worker was advised by her manager to apply for a job evaluation, something she was entitled to do under the Hay Evaluation Scheme. She applied in March, 2001, but, in the event, the review was not carried out despite, the Union claims, assurances from her Human Resources Manager. The worker retired in December, 2002.
The case was referred to a Rights Commissioner whose recommendation was as follows:-
"Based on the submissions made and for the reasons set out in the foregoing I find that the worker was unfairly denied an opportunity to have her post reviewed prior to her retirement and as such was denied access to the scheme in spite of her recommendation from her manager and without any explanation at the time. I recommend that she receive an additional once off payment of €5,000 as part of her termination package as a gesture of goodwill from ACC Bank and without precedent in respect of other employees in that section whose circumstances I consider to be different."
(The worker was named in the above recommendation).
The Union appealed the recommendation to the Labour Court on the 13th of January, 2004, in accordance with Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 25th of March, 2004.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3 1. The sum of money recommended by the Rights Commissioner falls far short of the actual loss to the worker due to the Bank's failure to carry out an evaluation on her job.
2. The Rights Commissioner accepted that the worker's case was unique in that it was her manager who recommended that she should have her job evaluated. The Rights Commissioner also accepted that there was no agreement to suspend the evaluation system.
BANK'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1 The worker's job, already with 3 other employees in the same area, was submitted for a job evaluation in October, 2002, by the manager in her section. However, management was not prepared to conduct such an evaluation at that time for a number of reasons, including major organisational changes.
2. In the agreed procedures, the endorsement of an employee's performance review does not guarantee a pay review.
3. The Bank was willing to accept the Rights Commissioner's recommendation although it felt that the payment was too high.
4. The worker did not raise the issue of a job evaluation when she applied for the Voluntary Separation Scheme in March, 2001.
DECISION:
Having considered all aspects of the Union's appeal of the Rights Commissioner's recommendation, the Court recommends an increase in the goodwill payment recommended by the Rights Commissioner. The Court recommends that this payment should be increased to €7,500 and should be accepted in full and final settlement of this claim.
Accordingly, the Court varies the Rights Commissioner's recommendation.
The Court so decides.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
22nd April, 2004______________________
TO'D/JBDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Tom O'Dea, Court Secretary.