FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : DEPAUL TRUST IRELAND LIMITED, (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS CONFEDERATION) - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY MP&GWD/SIPTU) DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Appeal of Recommendation of a Rights Commissioner.
BACKGROUND:
2. The DePaul Trust is a charity for homeless people and was established in Ireland in 2002. The following year it took over the running of the Back Lane Hostel near Christ Church from the St.Vincent de Paul Society. The Claimant was employed as a Junior Hostel Co-ordinator/Receptionist since 1995, but as this grade/role did not exist in the pay structure of the new organisation, a role/grade of Assistant Project Worker was specially set up to accommodate him. This new role paid a substantially higher salary than he previously earned in order to compensate him for the more demanding responsibilities and the unsociable hours involved. The Claimant requested after about a year to be allowed to revert back to his original role as Hostel Co-ordinator/Receptionist and when this was arranged his salary was reduced in order to reflect the reduction in responsibility and the fact that unsociable hours were no longer required to be worked. The Union contends that the Worker is not being properly remunerated.
The issue involves a claim by a Worker. The matter was referred to a Rights Commissioner for investigation and recommendation. On the 26th February, 2008, the Rights Commissioner issued his Recommendation as follows:-
"I have reviewed the arguments and submissions put forward by both parties. I note when the claimant transferred to his current employer no such role existed in their organisation. The claimant's Union negotiated a position for him and a pay scale to go with what was effectively his new role. However, the claimant reverted back to a similar position that he had in his former employment. The respondents were well within their rights to adjust his salary to reflect the lesser responsibility of his new role.
I therefore recommend that if the claimant wishes to go back on an incremental scale then he should with his Trade Union representative negotiate a new job description that would reflect this. If the claimant is not interested in that I do not find his claim well founded, therefore, it falls".
On the 26th March 2008 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 23rd May, 2008.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Worker retained all his terms and conditions of employment when the section where he worked was taken over by the DePaul Trust from the St.Vincent de Paul Society in 2003. The new Employer gave a commitment not to change these terms without consultation and agreement with the Union.
2. When the Claimant reverted to his original role, that of Co-ordinator/Receptionist, he found that he no longer enjoyed the same level of remuneration that pertained prior to the time of the transfer.This occurred without any discussion or negotiation with the Claimant or the Union.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Claimant was given a significantly higher salary than the level he was on before the takeover due to the unsociable hours required and the more demanding role as that of Assistant Project Worker.
2. Following the Worker's own request to return to his less demanding original role as Co-ordinator/Receptionist, his pay scale was reduced to reflect his less onerous job responsibilities.
DECISION:
The appeal of a Rights Commissioner’s Recommendation before the Court was made by the Union on behalf of a Worker who claimed that the employer breached his contract of employment with a consequential reduction in his salary.
The Court has considered the oral and written submissions of both parties. Conflicting information was presented to the Court on the position which pertained in 2004. Management contended that the Worker reverted back to a role he had undertaken prior to the Hostel’s take-over by the DePaul Trust Ireland in 2003. This role was essentially a reception/administrative role. Whereas, the Union maintained that the Worker’s role as Assistant Project Worker, to which he was appointed on the takeover, had not changed, but he was required to work unsocial hours for a period of eight months in 2004.
The Court is satisfied from the information supplied that the role and duties he performed were not akin to the role of a Project Worker.
Due to the lack of clarity involved in the circumstances of this case, the Court is of the view that the Worker should be paid the sum of €7,500.00 in full and final settlement of his claim.
Therefore, the Court overturns the Recommendation of the Rights Commissioner.
The Court so decides.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
30th May, 2008.______________________
JF.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to John Foley, Court Secretary.