FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : AN POST - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY CIVIL AND PUBLIC SERVICE UNION) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr McGee Employer Member: Mr Doherty Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Payment Of Allowance
BACKGROUND:
2. The case before the Court concerns a dispute between An Post and the CPSU concerning the payment of an "acting up" allowance to a Clerical Officer who was temporarily assigned to a role within the organisation traditionally carried out by Staff Officers.
An Post are claiming that the allowance is not payable in this case as the duties performed were applicable to the Clerical Officer grade. An Post also claim that under the Pay and Conditions deal of 2003, an increase of 10.5% was applied to compensate for redeployment as required based on the needs of the business.
The Union is claiming that the role undertaken by the claimant was appropriate to the Staff Officer grade and the payment of the allowance for the period in question is appropriate. The monetary value of the claim as submitted by the Union is €1,400.
On the 8th July 2005, the worker referred the matter to the Labour Court in accordance with Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 2001. A Labour Court Hearing took place on the 31st August 2005.
The worker agreed to be bound by the Court's Recommendation.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The work carried out by the claimant at the time required no further involvement from a senior officer, which would have been the case had it been confined to the Clerical Officer grade.
2. The claimant cleared a backlog of work which had existed for 5 years without training or an increase in remuneration. The work was appropriate to that of the Staff Officer grade and the appropriate rate should be applied.
3. The claimant has, as is provided for in clause 8.5 of the Pay and Re-Structuring Agreement 2003, complied with the redeployment/reassignment within the organisation. At issue, is the appropriate rate of pay for such re-deployment.
EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The claim as presented is in breach of the Pay and Re-Structuring Agreement 2003. An increase has already been paid to take account of such circumstances.
2. The Agreement of 2003 provides for an "acting up" allowance where appropriate. If the role had warranted payment of the allowance, it would have been applied immediately.
3. The claim is a cost increasing claim precluded under national wage agreements.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court is concerned at the differing interpretations of existing and proposed agreements by the parties. In the individual and unique circumstances of this case, the Court recommends that the claimant be paid an ex-gratia sum of €1,000 in respect of the block of work which she performed during the 11 week period in question.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Raymond McGee
26th September 2005______________________
AHDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Ciaran O'Neill, Court Secretary.