FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : SLIGO COUNTY COUNCIL - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION) DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Doherty Worker Member: Mr Nash |
1. Appeal against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation R-033725-IR-05/TB.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Worker has been employed by the Local Authority in Sligo since 1985. He transferred to Sligo County Council in January 2004. His terms and conditions of employment and service remained in place as part of the agreed change. The Worker has special skills and is paid at a rate equivalent to 95% of the Craft Rate since 1997.
The dispute concerns the payment of a Tool Allowance. The Worker was paid the Tool Allowance in 2003 and also in December 2004 when it was due by Sligo County Council.
The Craftworkers’ Tool Allowance only applies to the grades expressly named in the Parallel Benchmarking Agreement. It does not apply to grades analogous for pay relationship purposes. When the County Council realised its error it informed the Worker and reached an agreement for the repayment of the monies.
The Worker subsequently referred the issue to the Rights Commissioner for investigation and recommendation. In his recommendation which issued on the 14th July, 2005 he agreed that the worker should not have been paid the Tool Allowance but recommended that the Council repay the money already recovered and €2,500 in compensation to the Worker.
The Council appealed the recommendation to the Labour Court on the 9th August, 2005, in accordance with Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 24th October, 2006, the earliest date suitable to the parties.
MANAGEMENT'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Worker is employed by the Council and remunerated on a personalised rate of pay; he is not a craftworker. As such he has no right or aspiration to be paid the Tool Allowance.
2. The Council's action in the reimbursement of the overpayment by the Worker was in accordance with Section 5(5)(a) of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991.
3. The Council entered into an agreement with the Worker on the methodology for the repayment to be made. The arrangement was accepted by the Worker as evidenced by his signing the agreement.
4. The Council exercised its rights, in accordance with the Act, and took reasonable and fair regard to the Worker in the exercise of that right. There is therefore no justification for an award of compensation to be made against the Employer.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Union maintain that both the Corporation and Sligo County Council recognised the Worker's entitlement to the Tool Allowance by paying it to him in 2003 and in 2004.
2. The Worker is a dextrous and committed worker who can and does perform many tasks pertaining to that of other Craft workers.
3. The Worker is willing to accept the Rights Commissioner's Recommendation in full and final settlement of his claim.
DECISION:
The Court has considered the Employer’s appeal of the Rights Commissioner’s recommendation and in all the circumstances of this case, the Court concurs with the findings of the Rights Commissioner that the worker should not have been paid the Tool Allowance and upholds his recommendation that the worker should accept that he has no future right to the payment of the allowance. However, the Court does not concur with the recommendation to pay the worker €2500 compensation and the requirement for the Council to repay the recouped monies.
However, in all the circumstances of this case and in full and final settlement of the matter, the Court recommends that he should be paid a total payment of €665.
Accordingly, the Rights Commissioner’s recommendation is varied.
The Court so decides.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
2nd November, 2006______________________
MG.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Madelon Geoghegan, Court Secretary.