FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : WATERWAYS IRELAND (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS CONFEDERATION) - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY JOHN F FLANNERY & ASSOCIATES) DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Mr Nash |
1. Refusal to give additional increments for extra qualifications.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Union's claim is for two additional increments to be granted to the worker who has been employed as an Engineer since January, 2003. He is currently on the fifth point of the incremental scale. The Union believes that the worker is entitled to the two additional increments due to his qualifications (details supplied to the Court). The worker sought a review of his salary, in October, 2003, to reflect his qualifications. He was informed in August, 2004, that the Department of Finance would be willing to reconsider his position without commitment. Further correspondence took place between the parties before the worker was informed, in January, 2006, that the Company could not accede to his request for a salary review.
The worker referred his case to the Labour Court on the 31st of January, 2007, in accordance with Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 28th of March, 2007, in Galway.
The worker agreed to be bound by the Court's Recommendation.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. In February, 2005, the worker was informed by the Company's Director of Finance and Personnel that he would have a case for additional increments due to his increased levels of qualifications. However, before and since that date, the worker has had great difficulty in getting a definitive response from his employer despite repeated requests.
2. The manner in which the Company has dealt with this case is in total conflict with its equal opportunities policy, both in terms of the content and the spirit of the policy.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The worker was employed as an Engineer, Grade 3, in January, 2003, and was offered and accepted Point 1 of that salary scale. The appointment was in accordance with guidance as approved by both parent Departments. There is no record of him querying or disputing his starting salary.
2. The Company attempted to have the worker's position reviewed by the Department of Finance in the Republic of Ireland and the Dapartment of Finance and Personnel in Northern Ireland but this was unsuccessful. A letter from the Department of Finance in Dublin dated 6th of June, 2003, stated :"negotiations on the award of increments cannot be entered into after a candidate has taken up appointment".
RECOMMENDATION:
The issue before the Court concerns a claim by a staff member employed as an Engineer since 13th January, 2003, for two additional increments to be applied to his scale with retrospection to 3rd October, 2003. On that date he claimed that in accordance with a revised delegated authority from the Department of Finance in the Republic of Ireland and the Department of Finance and Personnel in Northern Ireland, issued to Waterways Ireland on 12th June, 2003, he fulfilled the criteria for the additional increments claimed.
Having considered the views of the parties expressed in their oral and written submissions, the Court is of the view that, when account is taken of the qualifications held by the claimant, coupled with the level of his most recent salary prior to being employed with Waterways Ireland, he should be paid the two additional increments.
The Claimant stated to the Court that he had been earning a salary of €70,211 when last employed. The Court recommends that verification of these earnings should be submitted to Waterways Ireland.
The Court accepts that the Claimant's salary should have been reviewed in October, 2003, after the revised arrangements were introduced. Therefore, on receipt of his previous salary verification, the Court recommends that he should be placed on point 7 of the scale with effect from 13th January, 2007, and be paid the full appropriate retrospection back to 3rd October, 2003.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
16th April, 2007______________________
CON/ MBDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Ciaran O'Neill, Court Secretary.