FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : NORTH TIPPERARY COUNTY COUNCIL (REPRESENTED BY LOCAL GOVERNMENT MANAGEMENT SERVICES BOARD) - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY IRISH MUNICIPAL, PUBLIC AND CIVIL TRADE UNION) DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Appeal of Rights Commissioner's Recommendation IR21134/04/MR
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker has thirty five years service with North Tipperary County Council and has been Storekeeper for the previous twenty four years. His grade of Storekeeper is aligned to the Grade V salary scale for pay purposes. The Union contends that as a result of a National Pay Claim on behalf of Storekeepers in March, 2001, the Local Government Management Services Board (LGMSB) agreed in 2002 that local discussions in each Local Authority should take place regarding the grading of Storekeepers. In North Tipperary County Council a review of the stores operation was undertaken and the report was issued in April, 2003. The Union contends that the worker was , following the local discussions, offered an acting Grade VI position, which was later withdrawn. The Union's claim before the Court is for the appointment of its member to the new post of Purchasing Officer in the Council and that this post should be regraded to Grade VI level.
- The Council rejects the claim and contends that a number of options had been discussed with the worker so that his views could be taken into account in the implementation of the report, however, the parties has not reached any agreement on the issues involved and that the Union's claim was precluded by the terms of Sustaining Progress. The Council has decided to appoint the worker to the position of Purchasing Officer at Grade V level as there is no justifiable case for altering the grade of the post.
- The matter was referred to a Rights Commissioner for investigation and Recommendation. His findings and Recommendation issued on the 25th March, 2005, as follows:
“Findings
Firstly, I am satisfied that the LGMSB's letter in March 2002 and the various developments since then regarding the stores function in local authorities are sufficient for me to find that this claim is not precluded by the terms of Sustaining Progress.
Secondly, I note that the Council has accepted the report of the Partnership Committee's Working Group and that this report emphasised the importance of dealing with the future position of the relevant staff. I also note that attempts were made by the parties to deal constructively with the effects of the recommended changes on the workers position and that the workers expectations might have been altered in these discussions.
The reality, however, is that it has not been possible for the parties to arrive at an agreed position on this issue. Based on the evidence before me, I have decided to issue the following Recommendation in an attempt to deal with this situation, with due regard to the rights of all the parties involved.
Recommendation
Accordingly, I recommend that -- North Tipperary County Council should agree, on a without precedent basis, to upgrade the worker to Grade VI in an acting capacity with effect from 1 September 2004;
- The worker should continue to co-operate with all the changes in his area and should undertake whatever duties are assigned to him by the Council in the implementation of the Working Party's recommendations;
- The Council should continue the process of creating a post of Purchasing Officer, as recommended by the Working Party;
If it is decided that this post should be graded at Grade VI level, it should be filled by competition in the normal way”
The worker was named in the Rights Commissioner’s Recommendation.
On the 5th May, 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 31st January, 2006.
- The matter was referred to a Rights Commissioner for investigation and Recommendation. His findings and Recommendation issued on the 25th March, 2005, as follows:
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Union contends that its member has not been dealt with in a fair and consistent manner compared to Storekeepers in other Local Authorities. Management has placed him in a very unsatisfactory position. This has resulted in a certain degree of stress and anxiety as his future role with the Council is unclear.
2. The Union is requesting that the Court find in favour of its member and recommend that the Post of Purchasing Officer, offered to him, be graded to level VI. This is on the basis of the specialist nature and responsibility of the Purchasing Officer Post that will involve the worker dealing with all sections of the Council, along with suppliers on purchasing and procurement issues. He will have further responsibility for a range of other issues from health and safety to processing payments and carrying administrative duties.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Council confirmed its acceptance of the Rights Commissioner's Recommendation and it has been its intention to implement same. The Council does not accept that its proposal contradicts the Rights Commissioner's Recommendation in any way. The worker has made the assumption that the position of Purchasing Officer would be graded to Grade VI. The new post will have similar responsibilities to his current post and is, therefore, appropriately graded, based on the duties and responsibilities of his job.
2. The Council contends that the Union's referral is inappropriate, in that the worker has been assigned the benefits which arose from the Rights Commissioner's Recommendation, and to now seek to require the Council to fill an additional position and pay the worker an acting allowance where there is no basis for same would make the position of Council Management untenable. The filling of the Purchasing Officer post will require the worker to vacate the position of Storekeeper. No additional staff can be employed unless a post has been suppressed, therefore, the Council proposes to suppress the position of Storekeeper.
DECISION:
In investigating the Union’s appeal of the Rights Commissioner’s Recommendation, the Court has considered the views of the parties expressed in their oral and written submissions. Having examined the duties associated with the new Purchasing Officer post, the Court is not satisfied that they are significantly different to the duties of the Storekeepers post which was graded as Grade V level. Consequently, the Court sees no justification for the claim to regrade the post to Grade VI level.
Therefore, the Court upholds the Rights Commissioner’s Recommendation. The Court interprets this Recommendation to mean that the worker should be appointed to the post of Purchasing Officer in an acting capacity with effect from 1st September, 2004, that he should cooperate with whatever duties are assigned to him in the creation of that post and that in the event of the post being graded at Grade VI level, then the Council should fill the post by competition in the normal way. The Court notes that in the meantime the Purchasing Officer post has been created.
At the hearing, the Union requested clear direction from the Court on what should happen next. To address this request and in addition to the above, the Court takes the view that the acting up payment was dependent on the creation of the new Purchasing Officer post; that post is now in place and is not graded at Grade VI level; consequently, the Court recommends that the acting-up payment should cease with effect from the date of this Recommendation.
The Court upholds the terms of the Rights Commissioner’s Recommendation. The Court so decides.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
16th February, 2006______________________
JO'CDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Joanne O'Connor, Court Secretary.