FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2001 SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : ROSCOMMON COUNTY COUNCIL (REPRESENTED BY LOCAL GOVERNMENT MANAGEMENT SERVICES BOARD) - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Doherty Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Appeal against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation IR12519/02/GF.
BACKGROUND:
2. The appeal concerns the Union's claim on behalf of a Traveller Accommodation Supervisor for parity with 12 General Services Supervisors. Management rejected the claim. The dispute was referred to Rights Commissioner for investigation. On the 24th April, 2003 the Rights Commissioner issued his recommendation as follows:
"I am satisfied the claim is well founded and there was some ambiguity over the rate during the period he has been employed. If the claimant had been described as anything other than "supervisor" of travel accommodation I might feel differently about a parity claim but I believe that matter should been seriously considered by the Council before conferring that job description on him. Therefore, I am recommending concession of the claim from June 17th, 2002."
On the 12th May, 2003 the Council appealed the recommendation to the Labour Court. The Court heard the appeal in Roscommon on the 17th February, 2004(the earliest date suitable to the parties).
COUNCIL'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The role and responsibility of the post does not equate to that of a General Services Supervisor.
2. The claimant will benefit from the Parallel Benchmarking (PB) process and receive an increase of approximately 17%. The level of increase being sought is in excess of 15%. This is in addition to the 17% under the PB process.
3. The Court in previous recommendations recommended that these cases should be dealt with in the context of the relevant national agreements. (LCR's 15425, and 16751 refer).
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The claimant was employed as a Supervisor. His job title and job content are similar to that of General Services Supervisor.
2. The claimant is paid travel expenses for the use of his car as are General Services Supervisors.
3. The claimant was originally offered the job as Caretaker. He refused this offer but subsequently accepted the job as Supervisor.
DECISION:
The Court is not satisfied that the claimant's post is sufficiently similar to that of General Services Supervisor so as to justify the payment of the rate claimed.
The Court does however, accept that the current rate paid to the claimant is not commensurate with the duties of his post. Furthermore the Court is satisfied that there was no clear agreement between the Council and the claimant on the rate for the job at the time of his appointment.
In the circumstances of this case the Court is of the view that the claimant should be paid a rate equal to 85% of the General Services Supervisor's rate. This should be strictly on a personal to holder basis on the basis that it will not be quoted or relied upon as a precedent. The rate should be retrospective to the date of claim namely 25th February, 2002.
The Court decides that the Rights Commissioner's recommendation be amended to provide accordingly. To that extent the appeal is allowed.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
9th March, 2004______________________
TOD/BRChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Tom O'Dea, Court Secretary.