FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : NATIONAL COLLEGE OF ART AND DESIGN - AND - A WORKER SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Flood Employer Member: Mr Carberry Worker Member: Mr. Somers |
1. Compensation for additional work
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker has been employed by the College since 1986 and was made permanent in 1991. Since 1991 she was working for a half day in the morning in the Library and a half day in the afternoons in Core Studies. She was one of a number of workers who filled out a job questionnaire in November, 1999, which, the College claims, was to improve the grade of the role. The job questionnaire was signed by herself and the Head of Core Studies. In December, 1999, a Staffing Review Committee made recommendations which resulted in a number of posts being upgraded. The Review recommended that the Core Studies post should be full time. The work in the library necessitated an additional half-time post. The Union's claim is that while all other upgrades recommended were implemented with full retrospection to December, 1999, the worker was not upgraded until August, 2001, and with no retrospection paid. The Union claims that because Core Studies was recognised as a full-time post the worker was, in effect doing 1.5 posts between December, 1999 and August, 2001, and that she should be paid compensation (approximately €10,000) for that period. The College has rejected the claim and maintains that Core Studies was a half day's work, not a full-day.
The dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commission and a conciliation conference took place. As the parties did not reach agreement, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 27th of November, 2003, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 11th of May, 2004, the earliest date suitable to the parties.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Review Committee recognised that the work in Core Studies required it to be upgraded to a full-time position.
2. The worker continued in both posts for 20 months after the Review recommendations were made but with no reward. She was the only person whose post was upgraded who received no retrospection.
3. The worker could only complete her duties in Core Studies by frequently having no break, working late or having to bring work home with her.
COLLEGE'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The worker was not required to carry out 1.5 jobs for the 20 months in question , and no relevant evidence has been produced to substantiate that claim.
2. The Head of Core Studies does not support the claim for compensation.
3. The work in Core Studies did not become a full - time job until August, 2001, when additional secretarial work became part of the job.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court is satisfied, based on the information presented at the hearing, that the claimant was paid her upgrading retrospectively to December, 1999.
While the claimant may have been working exceptionaly hard in her job - something that is refuted by management - this was not as a result of the job grading and, therefore, the Court does not recommend concession of her claim.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Finbarr Flood
31st May, 2004______________________
CON/MB.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Ciaran O'Neill, Court Secretary.