FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : MAYO COUNTY COUNCIL (REPRESENTED BY LOCAL GOVERNMENT MANAGEMENT SERVICES BOARD) - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr McGee Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Mr Nash |
1. Appeal of Recommendation of a Rights Commissioner No. r-054049-ir-07/JT.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Worker concerned commenced employment with Mayo County Council in May 1999. On 13th March 2003 he took up duties as an Acting Light Equipment Operator(L.E.O.) and was made permanent in the post on the 30th November 2005.
In 2006 the Worker became aware that the vehicle he was driving since 2003 entitled him to the rate of pay of Plant Operator A.
The issue was referred to a Rights Commissioner for investigation and recommendation. His Recommendation issued on the 5th December 2007, as follows:-
"....I therefore recommend that the claimants pay rate be adjusted to comply with the Plant Operator A payment and that he be paid retrospectively from the 1st January 2004."
Management appealed the Recommendation to the Labour Court on the 8th January, 2008, in accordance with Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 23rd September, 2008, the earliest date suitable to the parties.
MANAGEMENT'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. Management stated that in Labour Court Recommendation 17609 the Court recommended that, in the absence of agreement between the parties, the existing grade structures and pay relativity arrangements should be maintained as per Departmental Circular Letter EL15/81.
2. The Worker is remunerated as a Light Equipment Operator; according to Circular Letter EL15/81, drivers of pick-up trucks fall within category 2, Light Equipment Operators. Management maintains that the Worker is properly remunerated relative to the category of vehicle which he drives.
3. The vehicle the Worker drives in the course of his work is a Mercedes Benz 814D pick-up truck with a design gross weight not exceeding 7,490kg. Management stated that according to vehicle licence categorisation, vehicles with a design gross weight of not over 7,500kg fall into the category of pick-up truck.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1.The Union maintains that the qualifications for payment of L.E.O. and Plant Operator A are associated, respectively, with Pick-up Trucks (L.E. O.)and Lorries under ten tonne laden weight (Plant Operator A) as contained in Circular Letter EL15/81.
2. The Union contends that the Worker drives a lorry which has an unladen weight of 4,090 kg. and when the modifications to the vehicle are factored in the weight becomes 4.90 tonnes. The vehicle has a laden capacity of 7 tonness and therefore comes under the category of Plant Operator A.
3. The Union maintains that the facts as stated above clearly demonstrate that the vehicle driven by the Worker comes under the category of Plant Operator A and therefore qualifies the Worker for payment of the Plant Operator A rate.
DECISION:
Having considered the submissions made by the parties and considering in particular the provisions of Circular EL 15/81 and Labour Court Recommendation No. 17609, the Court decides to uphold the appeal and overturn the Recommendation of the Rights Commissioner.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Raymond McGee
13th October, 2008______________________
MG.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Madelon Geoghegan, Court Secretary.