FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : HEALTH AND SAFETY AUTHORITY (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - TWO WORKERS (REPRESENTED BY IRISH MUNICIPAL, PUBLIC AND CIVIL TRADE UNION) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr McGee Employer Member: Mr Doherty Worker Member: Mr Nash |
1. Appeal of Rights Commissioners Recommendation R-033290-IR-05-DI.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Claimants are employed by the Health and Safety Authority as Inspectors. The dispute before the Court concerns a claim by the Union on behalf of its two members who have been in the acting positions with the Authority for inordinately lengthy periods. The Union claims that the individuals, at Grade 2 and Grade 3 levels, should be appointed substantially forthwith by designation and with appropriate incremental credit for each year spent acting up and annual leave be granted for the periods spent acting up. The Authority rejects the claim as unwarranted and not reasonable.
- The matter was referred to a Rights Commissioner for investigation and recommendation. His findings and recommendation issued on the 15th August, 2005, as follows:
Claimant A at Grade 3 Level acting as a Grade 2 Inspector- “While I fully accept the Claimant’s secondment to the Grade 2 position has been for a time period in excess of what would be the norm, I do not find that the length of the secondment gives the Claimant any right to be appointed permanently to that grade. Furthermore, while I understand the Claimant’s grievance at the continuous reduction in the level of his acting up allowance, he has been paid in accordance with the agreed policy covering acting-up allowances.
I find against the Claimants complaint under the Industrial Relations Acts, 1969 to 2004.”
- “While I fully accept the Claimant’s secondment to the Grade 2 position has been for a time period in excess of what would be the norm, I do not find that the length of the secondment gives the Claimant any right to be appointed permanently to that grade. Furthermore, while I understand the Claimant’s grievance at the continuous reduction in the level of his acting up allowance, he has been paid in accordance with the agreed policy covering acting-up allowances.
- “While I fully accept the Claimant’s secondment to the Grade 1 position has been for a time period in excess of the norm, I do not find that the length of the secondment gives the Claimant any right to be appointed permanently to that grade. Furthermore, while I can understand the Claimant’s grievance at the continuous reduction in the level of his acting up allowance, he has been paid in accordance with the agreed policy covering acting-up allowances.
I find against the Claimants complaint under the Industrial Relations Acts, 1969 to 2004.”
- The worker was named in the Rights Commissioner’s Recommendation.
On the 10th September, 2005, the Union appealed the Rights Commissioner’s Recommendation to the Labour Court in accordance with Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 14th December, 2005.
- The matter was referred to a Rights Commissioner for investigation and recommendation. His findings and recommendation issued on the 15th August, 2005, as follows:
3. 1. The individuals believe that they have performed in excess of what the H.S.A would expect from the acting up grades and the demand to continue this performance will remain into the future. The time has come to end the unfairness inherent in their acting up for such an extended period and to initiate an appropriate system of recompense for the work done and being undertaken at present. It is the Unions contention that the Rights Commissioner did not give enough weight to the length of acting service and the uniqueness of this situation.
2. Lengthy acting up cases were brought before the Labour Court before and in three separate cases that this Union was involved with in Teagasc, LCR's 14959,15215,16209, the Court ruled in favour of the workers, appointing them to the relevant positions and granting them incremental credit for the periods of acting up. Concession of this claim would clearly fit into the category of minor claims as understood between the Department of Finance and the ICTU Public Service Committee in the context of Sustaining Progress Agreement.
3. It is clearly unfair to have a system where Inspectors of similar standing, level of expertise and responsibilities are financially rewarded on a separate basis over a three year plus period of time. The Union respectfully requests the Court to recommend that the claim be conceded and that both individuals are substantially appointed and granted appropriate incremental credit, retrospectively, on the higher scale and the higher Annual Leave be granted for each year acting.
AUTHORITY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The claim is unreasonable and cannot be met within the agreed policy and practice of the H.S.A and goes beyond the traditional practice in the Civil and Public Service. Any recommendation from the labour Court to accept the Union's appeal may itself have consequences within the wider Civil and Public Service. The H.S.A considers the Rights Commissioner Recommendation to be correct.
2. The H.S.A has acted reasonably in all dealings with the two individuals. No change in the Claimants personal substantive status within the H.S.A has either been promised, or could be delivered within the Civil Service practice. Acting up periods of two years or more are not unusual in the context of Civil and Public Service practice and the Rights Commissioner did not find that the length of acting gives any right to substantive promotion.
3. The H.S.A cannot accede to any request to appoint these staff to the positions substantively as it has reached its complement of Grade 1 and Grade 2 positions.
DECISION:
Having considered the submissions of the parties, the Court finds no reason to alter the Recommendation of the Rights Commissioner and decides accordingly.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Raymond McGee
21st December 2005______________________
JO'C/JBDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Jackie Byrne, Court Secretary.