FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : FÁS - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Claim for payment at Grade 7 level.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker is currently employed as a Development Officer in the Staff Development Section in FAS and is paid at Grade 8. He took up the position in August, 2002. He has tried on a number of occasions to apply for Grade 6 and Grade 7 posts but without success. The Union's claim is as follows: in August, 2002, when the worker took up his post there were two other Development Officers in the Section. All three were paid at Grade 8. Prior to the worker's appointment the other two officers had made a claim for Grade 7 to the Minor Claims Panel (MCP) and were eventually successful after the worker's appointment. (Upgrading claims to the MCP closed in April, 2002). The Union claims that the three Officers were doing identical work and that the worker concerned should now be paid at Grade 7 level. The worker first made his claim in February, 2003, but it was rejected by FAS, the main reason being that he was not doing Grade 7 work.
The case 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 17th of August, 2005, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 22nd of November, 2005.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. Following the claim by the two workers for Grade 7 the MCP evaluated the job and felt it warranted Grade 7 payment due to the level of responsibility, duties, etc. The worker concerned was doing exactly the same work and should be paid accordingly.
2. The Union is not seeking an up-grading for the worker, just the appropriate payment for work done.
3. The normal reporting structure in FAS is that Grade 8 reports to Grade 7. In this case the worker reports to the Director of the Staff Development Section and Manager of Staff Development, not to a Grade 7 Officer.
FAS's ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The MCP was set up on a specific basis that"any settlements arising would have to be red circled and could not be used as a precedent for other claims".The worker concerned made his claim as a result of the other two employees being regraded to Grade 7.
2. The worker does not perform the same duties as those working at Grade 7. The current structure in the Section does not need another Grade 7 (Assistant Manager) post.
3. The worker applied a number of times for promotion to Grade 7 but was unsuccessful. FAS cannot now pay him at Grade 7 as it would create a precedent for other employees. The claim is precluded by the terms of Sustaining Progress.
RECOMMENDATION:
It is clear to the Court that the agreed terms of reference of the Minor Claims Panel precluded reliance on its decisions to advance consequential claims.
While the Court accepts that the claim now before it is expressed as one of equal treatment between colleagues engaged in similar work, it arose directly in consequence of a decision of the Minor Claims Panel. As such it is a consequential claim and, in the Court's view, its concession would be incompatible with the clear intention of the parties in establishing that Panel.
In these circumstances the Court does not recommend concession of the Union's claim.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
28th November, 2005______________________
CON/MC,Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Ciaran O'Neill, Court Secretary.