FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : ENTERPRISE IRELAND - AND - AMICUS DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Grier Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Application Of 6% Under LCR 17867
BACKGROUND:
2. This dispute was previously before the Court and was dealt with in LCR17867 and LCR18096. In these Recommendations the Court acknowledged that a pay anomaly existed between Senior Scientific Officer (SSO) level and the newly formed Level E Solution Grade. The Court recommended local discussions to resolve the pay anomaly between the two grades that were equivalent in work and experience. As a result of these Recommendations a 6% increase was applied to SSO grade staff to bring them into line with Level E Solution Grade. However, the increase was only applicable to staff serving at SSO level on the 31st May, 1999. This was implemented in 2005 and back dated as necessary.
The claim before the Court is for the application of LCR17867/18096 to two members of staff appointed to the SSO grade after the cut off date of 31st May, 1999. The two workers concerned were regraded to SSO level after an organisation and methods (O & M) studies. The regrading was effective from 1st July, 1999. The Union claim that this created a significant financial disadvantage to the two members concerned solely based on their date of appointment to the SSO grade. The Company contends that there is no objective justification to alter the effective date of the appointments.
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 March, 2007 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 11th July, 2007.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1 The O & M studies were commissioned by the Company as a result of a claim for upgrading at the request of members involved on both posts and which concluded that they were carrying out duties and responsibilities commensurate with their positions prior to 31st May, 1999. The arbitrarily selection of the appointment date of the 1st July, 1999 by the Company's HR Department failed to adequtely address this position
2 The Union believe that the Company failed to provide the correct grading structure for the posts in the first instance. The retrospective nature of the implementation of the Labour Court Recommendation has radically altered the conditions under which the members accepted the offers of regrading to the SSO grade and therefore puts them at a considerable financial disadvantage in their current positions
3 At the interviews it was specifically stated that if and when they obtained their primary degrees they would be promoted to the SSO grade. In the case of one of the worker's, he obtained his degree in March 1998. He should have been regraded to SSO on the 1st April 1998. The 1st of April was the normal date for increments to be paid.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1 LCR 17867 and LCR 18096 have been accepted by all parties and subsequently implemented. It is crucial, for reasons put forward by the Company in its previous submissions and contained in Labour Court Recommendations themselves, that the integrity of the cut-off date of 31st May 1999 be maintained.
2 In the case of the two workers concerned, the effective date of appointment to the SSO grade was accepted by all parties at the time. Any attempt to change this effective date would be an effort to in effect re-write history.
3 The company submit that the evidence shows that this claim is an attempt to circumvent the terms of the SSO agreement.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court accepts that the date of 31st May 1999 is the established cut off point for entry to the SSO grade and in order to qualify for the Solution increments. The Court cannot and does not recommend that this date be altered.
It is clear to the Court that the Claimants in this case were in the SSO grade prior to 31st May 1999. The O & M study confirmed that this was the de facto position. As the Claimants were in the SSO grade before 31st May 1999 they are entitled to the increments claimed and the Court recommends that their claim be conceded on this basis.
For the avoidance of doubt the Court wishes to emphasize that this recommendation is made on the basis that the Claimants met the established criteria for entry to the solution grade and it does not represent any departure from that criteria
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
27th July, 2007______________________
DNChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to David P Noonan, Court Secretary.