FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : LIMERICK CITY COUNCIL - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Appeal against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation IR36708/05/MR.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Worker concerned is currently employed as a Grade 5 Machinery Superintendent with Limerick City Council. In January 2003, following a previous Rights Commissioner's Recommendation, the Worker received an allowance equal to € 30 per week for work he undertook in maintaining Sewage Pumping Stations. The allowance was both index-linked and superannuable.
In July 2005 Limerick City Council withdrew this allowance due to the decommissioning of the Sewage Pumping Stations.
The issues currently in dispute concern (a) a claim for the restoration of the allowance and (b) a claim for upgrading following the Worker's appointment to Garage Superintendent.
The issues were referred to a Rights Commissioner for investigation and Recommendation. On the 9th August 2006 the Rights Commissioner found against the Worker and issued his Recommendation, as follows:
Accordingly, I recommend that Limerick City Council should now agree, on a once- offand without precedent basis, to pay the worker an ex-gratia lump sum of € 1,000 as a gesture of goodwill, as above. For their part the worker and SIPTU should accept this payment in full and final settlement of all matters in dispute between the parties.
(the Worker was named in the Rights Commissioners recommendation)
On the 18th September2006 the Worker 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 16th May 2007.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Union contends that the Worker's allowance was calculated as part of his pension entitlements and therefore a permanent part of his remuneration package and should not be removed.
2. When the Worker was appointed an Authorised Officer for vehicle testing, he was not upgraded to level 6/7 as were his colleagues in other Local Authorities. The Union is seeking an independent assessment of the Worker's current functions using his counterparts in other Local Authorities as a comparison.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The City Council claims that the Worker was paid a Drainage Operative Allowance while his duties included maintenance work at pumping stations. This was of a temporary nature and when the pumping stations were decommissioned the allowance was stopped.
2. Regarding the re-grading of the Worker to the post of Technical Superintendent, the City Council has demonstrated that the range of duties being carried out by employees in areas cited by the Union in their comparison are far more wide ranging than those currently assigned to its Machinery Superintendent and that the post that the Worker currently holds is appropriate for the range of duties and responsibilities currently assigned to him.
DECISION:
The Court has given careful consideration to the submissions of the parties to this appeal and determines as follows:-
Claim 1 - Retention of Allowance.
The Court accepts that in normal circumstances an allowance which is paid for a particular duty can be withdrawn when that duty is no longer performed. However the Court recognises that in this case there are exceptional circumstances of a personal nature relating to the Claimant arising from the proximity of his retirement date and the pensionable nature of the allowance.
In these circumstances the Court is of the view the allowance should continue to apply to the Claimant on a notional basis for pension purposes only. The Court is also of the view that the lump-sum recommended by the Rights Commissioner should be increased to € 1,500.
This decision is grounded on the exceptional circumstances of the individual Claimant in this case. It is made on the strict understanding that it is to have no precedent value whatsoever and will not be quoted nor relied upon for any purpose in this or any other employment or case.
Claim 2- Re-grading Claim.
The Court is satisfied that the proposal for an independent assessment of the Claimant's job relative to the comparators identified by the Union is reasonable The parties should agree the appointment of a suitably qualified person to undertake this exercise. The terms of reference of the exercise should also be agreed.
The Rights Commissioner's Recommendation is varied accordingly.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
31st May 2007______________________
JF.Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to John Foley, Court Secretary.