FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : MAYO COUNTY COUNCIL - AND - A WORKER REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Appeal of Rights Commissioner's Recommendation R-052870-Ir-07/ MH
BACKGROUND:
2. This case concerns an appeal of Right's Commissioners Recommendation R-052870-Ir-07/ MH. The issue in dispute concerns an employee of Mayo County Council who was promoted to the Deputy Foreman grade and aligned to the starting
point of the appropriate pay scale in compliance with Section 4.8(a) of the Employment Contract and Conditions of Employment - Local Authority Non Officer Grades.
The Union's position is that the worker should be paid at the maximum of the new scale in compliance with Section 4.8(b) which applies to non-craft grades.
The matter was referred to the Rights Commissioner's service of the Labour Relations Commission for investigation and recommendation. His Recommendation issued on 7th November 2007, as follows:
"Having carefully considered the submissions and arguments advanced by the parties it is clear that the respondent did properly apply the regulations as they relate to this particular promotion. I therefore recommend against this claim."
On 16th November, 2007, the Union appealed the Rights Commissioner's recomendation in accordance with Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on 4th March, 2008.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS
3 1 The worker should be assigned to the maximum of the new payscale on the basis of his length of service and previous position on the maximum of the Plant Operator's payscale.
2 There will be no repercussive effects from this claim as the position is a local one and a precedent has previously been set by the Company. The cost of the claim to management is also negligible.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4 1 Management applied the correct payscale to the worker on promotion. An anomaly in relation to loss of additional earnings on promotion has been addressed.
2 Concession of the claim will have repercussive effect elsewhere in the Local Authorities.
DECISION:
The Court has considered the written and oral submissions of the parties. On promotion the Claimant was appointed to Deputy Foreman grade, which is aligned to the Assistant Foreman grade.
-The County Council placed him on the first point of the scale in accordance with section 4.8 (a) of the Employment Contract & Conditions of Employment – Local Authority Non Officer Grades, which applies to the Craft Grades.
Whereas, the Union submitted that he should have been placed on the maximum point of the scale in accordance with section 4.8 (b), which applies to Non-Officer Grades.
The Court accepts that on promotion he was placed on a grade, which is aligned for pay purposes to one of the Craft Grades. Consequently the Court is satisfied that the County Council correctly applied his starting salary on promotion.
Therefore, the Court upholds the Rights Commissioner’s Recommendation and the appeal fails.
The Court so decides.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
16th April 2008______________________
AHDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Andrew Heavey, Court Secretary.