FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : CITY WIDE DRUGS CRISIS CAMPAIGN LTD - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION) DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Appeal of Rights Commissioner's Recommendation R-057982-ir-07/GC
BACKGROUND:
2. The dispute arose because, although the Claimant was placed on a pay scale linked to that of a Higher Executive Officer (standard scale) in the Civil Service, the Respondent failed to pay the Claimant any incremental or Benchmarking pay increases. The matter was referred to a Rights Commissioner for investigation and recommendation. On the 1st August, 2008 the Rights Commissioner issued the following Recommendation:-
- “The claimant was appointed in 2000 on a salary equivalent to the first point of the Civil Service HEO scale. There was no contract of employment. There appears to have been no commitment to award increments. Had there been a contract of employment from either the beginning of her employment or at any time during it, the issue of increments may have been clarified. It is noted that budgets approved for the Citywide Drugs Crisis Campaign did not allow for incremental increases, just the inflator and national pay agreements. The situation has now been somewhat rectified as the claimant has been placed at the top of the scale from January 2008.
Although there was no commitment given to the claimant in respect of incremental increases, there would have been some expectation on behalf of the claimant that having been placed on a salary equivalent to the first point of the Civil Service HEO scale. The fact that the management committee submitted for the increases each year would have contributed to that expectation. However, the approval of budgets each year did not allow for such increases. In all the circumstances I award the claimant the sum of €3,000”.
- “The claimant was appointed in 2000 on a salary equivalent to the first point of the Civil Service HEO scale. There was no contract of employment. There appears to have been no commitment to award increments. Had there been a contract of employment from either the beginning of her employment or at any time during it, the issue of increments may have been clarified. It is noted that budgets approved for the Citywide Drugs Crisis Campaign did not allow for incremental increases, just the inflator and national pay agreements. The situation has now been somewhat rectified as the claimant has been placed at the top of the scale from January 2008.
3. 1. Having been placed on the Higher Executive Officer pay scale, which allowed for service related incremental pay increases, the Claimant should have received these pay increases.
2. The Claimant did not receive the c.10% pay increase awarded toHigher Executive Officers by Benchmarking.
3.The Rights Commissioner's Recommendation should be amended to reflect the Claimant's loss in regard to the non-application of increments and Benchmarking.
EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Employer is entirely dependent on government funding.
2. The government has consistently declined to provide the additional funding required to pay incremental and Benchmarking increases.
3. The Employer is, therefore, not able to concede this claim.
DECISION:
The Union, on behalf of the Worker, appealed the Recommendation of the Rights Commissioner, which recommended that a sum of €3,000 should be paid to the Appellant in respect of her claim for retrospective incremental increases valued at €9,000 plus implementation of a Benchmarking award. That Decision was not appealed by the Employer.
Having considered the positions of both parties as expressed in their oral and written submissions, the Court concurs with the Rights Commissioner's finding that, while there may have been some expectation of increments, there was no commitment to award such annual increases and the organisation's budgets did not allow for them. Furthermore, the Court does not find merit in the claim for application of the Benchmarking award to the Appellant.
Therefore, in all the circumstances, the Court upholds the Rights Commissioner's Recommendation's award to pay the Appellant a sum of €3,000.
The Court so decides.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
16th December, 2008______________________
JMcCDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Jonathan McCabe, Court Secretary.