FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 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: Mr O'Neill |
1. Appeal Of Rights Commissioner's Recommendation R-053928-IR-07/POB.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Worker is seeking payment of a lump sum compensation payment made to staff of the Housing Maintenance Section in 2001/2002 for accepting changes to work practices and combining morning and lunch breaks. The matter was referred to a Rights Commissioner for investigation and recommendation. On the 9th July, 2008 the Rights Commissioner issued the following Recommendation:-
- “The payment given to the Housing Department staff in 2001 was for a change to 26 duties or conditions (approximately) by the Housing Department and was voted on and accepted by the members of the Housing Department in 2001. The claimant has not suffered any loss of earnings and is suffering minimal change to his conditions of employment as a result of his move to the Housing Department. It could reasonably be argued that these changes come under Towards 2016 and the claimant is receiving the benefit of pay increases under Towards 2016. Most deals like the one in this case only apply to the staff present at the time of the introduction of the changes and not to staff who subsequently join the section. There is no record of any agreement from the Conciliation Conference that the deal would apply to future Housing Department staff. Based on all the above, I do not see any merit to propose an award to the claimant.”.
- “The payment given to the Housing Department staff in 2001 was for a change to 26 duties or conditions (approximately) by the Housing Department and was voted on and accepted by the members of the Housing Department in 2001. The claimant has not suffered any loss of earnings and is suffering minimal change to his conditions of employment as a result of his move to the Housing Department. It could reasonably be argued that these changes come under Towards 2016 and the claimant is receiving the benefit of pay increases under Towards 2016. Most deals like the one in this case only apply to the staff present at the time of the introduction of the changes and not to staff who subsequently join the section. There is no record of any agreement from the Conciliation Conference that the deal would apply to future Housing Department staff. Based on all the above, I do not see any merit to propose an award to the claimant.”.
3. 1. The Worker was transferred against his will from the Cleansing Section to the Housing Maintenance Section in 2007.
2. This transfer saw his working week and terms and conditions of employment change dramatically.
3.The Worker should be compensated for these changes to his working week and terms and conditions of employment.
EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. Thislump sum compensation payment was made to members of the Housing Maintenance Section in 2001/2002 andthe Worker was redeployed tothe Housing Maintenance Section in 2007.
2. Other staff who have joined theHousing Maintenance Section before and after the Worker have not received thislump sum compensation payment. It should also be noted that the Worker suffered no financial loss as a result of the transfer.
3. This is a cost-increasing claim which is precluded under the terms of "Towards 2016".
DECISION:
The Court is satisfied that the agreement at issue was confined in its scope to those who were employed in the Housing Maintenance Department at the relevant time. In these circumstances the Court does not accept that the Union’s claim for the application of the agreement to the Claimant in this case is well-founded.
The Court concurs with the conclusions and Recommendation of the Rights Commissioner. The appeal is, accordingly, disallowed and the Recommendation of the Rights Commissioner is affirmed.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
9th December, 2008______________________
JMcCChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Jonathan McCabe, Court Secretary.