FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : CORK INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Claim For Incremental Credit
BACKGROUND:
2. The claim before the Court is for incremental credit in recognition of the previous experience of the worker. The Union claims that the worker should have been granted entry at the ninth point of the incremental salary scale when commencing employment with the Institute in 2001. The worker should now be progressed to the top of the scale and paid compensation for the lost increments. The Institute reject this argument. They believe that the claim is based on a previous Labour Court Recommendation, LCR 17373, which involves a similar institution. However, it is the Institutions belief that in LCR 17373 there were particular circumstances unique to this case. The Institute have followed standard practice by appointing the worker to the second point on the incremental scale in accordance with his qualifications.
The dispute could not be resolved at local level and was the subject of a Conciliation Conference under the auspices of the Labour Relations Commission. As agreement was not reached, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 1st December, 2006 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 13th June, 2007.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1 Precedents already exist in a number of other similar institutes. It was argued by the Union in LCR 17373, and not refuted by the other party, that incremental advancement beyond the second point of the salary scale on entry occurred in a number of cases.
2 The worker's department within the Institute has benefited greatly from his qualifications and the experience he gained in previous employment. This fact is acknowledged widely by both management and his colleagues.
3 The cost of training up an individual to the level of the worker's expertise far outweighs the cost involved in granting him entry at a higher point on the salary scale.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1 It has been a long standing practice to place new employees on commencement at point one of the appropriate salary scale, if the appointee had a National Certificate or equivalent, and on point two of the scale if they had a Diploma or a Degree. The worker was placed on point two of the scale as that was appropriate considering his qualifications. Since 1993 there has been no deviation whatsoever from this practice in the Institute.
2The Institute has been totally consistent in its application of the nationally agreed regulations. There has been no deviation whatsoever from the established agreements. Neither has any exception been made for any employee on commencement.
3 Any concession in this claim will have major financial consequences for the Institute. A change in the incremental policy relating to the worker's grade would also have an impact on other grades. Further claims from these groups of staff would ensue.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Claimant in this case commenced employment with the Institute in 2001. He accepted the terms on which he was appointed in all respects, including the incremental point on which he was placed. He first raised the subject matter of this dispute with the Institute in or about July 2005. It appears to the Court that the sole basis for the claim is that the Court had addressed a somewhat similar situation, which arose in another employment, in Recommendation LCR 17373. However, that Recommendation relates to the particular case then under investigation by the Court and was not intended to have general application.
The Court further notes that an agreement has recently been concluded with the Unions representing technician grades and the relevant employers on incremental credit for prior experience or earning capacity. That Agreement, the Court understands, is expressly confined in its scope to future appointments.
In all the circumstances of this case the Court does not see any reasonable basis upon which it could recommend that the terms on which the Claimant accepted appointment with the Institute in 2001 should now be reopened. Accordingly the Court does not recommend concession of the Union's claim.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
2nd July, 2007______________________
DNChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to David P Noonan, Court Secretary.