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 IRISH MUNICIPAL, PUBLIC AND CIVIL TRADE UNION) DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Mr Nash |
1. Appeal of the Recommendation of a Rights Commissioner r-055747-ir-07/SR.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Employee is working as Town Clerk in Castlebar since 1st August, 2001, and is seeking to have her salary aligned to that of Senior Executive Officer scale. Her employer, Mayo County Council (MCC) is rejecting the claim. The issue now involves an appeal by the Employer. The matter was referred to a Rights Commissioner for investigation and recommendation. On the 9th May, 2008, the Rights Commissioner issued his Recommendation as follows:
"There is considerable merit it this claim. I recommend that the employer pay the claimant at the Senior Executive Officer scale from the date originally sanctioned i.e. 28th April 2002."
On the 17th June, 2008 the Employer 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 10th March, 2009.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Employee, under the direction of the Town Manager, is responsible for the operation and management of Castlebar Town Council. She is doing the same job and similar work as her comparators and should be paid at the same pay rate.
2. The census of population taken on 28th April 2002 showed that Castlebar's population had grown to 10,287 which meant that her salary scale should equate to the Senior Executive Officer scale. This was not paid.
3. The inequitable position of the Employee can only be remedied by the implementation of the Rights Commissioner's Recommendation.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. Given that there is already a Senior Executive Officer with responsibility for Castlebar Town Council area, it is considered appropriate that the Employee is not entitled to be re-graded under the 2003 agreement.
2. The Local Authority sector entered into the agreement with the Union for the re-grading of expressly identified Town Clerks appointed only as such but where a Town Clerk is assigned then it is a matter for the County Manager to decide the grading most appropriate to the responsibilities involved.
3. There is a clear distinction between those Town Clerks appointed either before or after 1998 PCW in regard to their pay scale. The legislation was subsequently enacted by way of Statutory Instrument S.I. 590/2001.
DECISION:
The matter before the Court is an appeal by the Employer of a Rights Commissioner’s Recommendation which found in favour of the Employee’s claim that, as the appointed Town Clerk for Castlebar, she should be regraded to Senior Executive Officer grade.
The Union on her behalf argued that in line with other appointed Town Clerks in other areas, the Claimant should have been upgraded from Administrative Officer grade (Grade VII) to Senior Executive Officer grade, following the census of 2002, when the population of the town of Castlebar increased to 10,287. It stated that the Town Manager had approved the higher salary scale as it was the applicable scale for Town Clerks in the population category 9,000 – 15,000.
Management disputed her appointment as Town Clerk and stated that she was an employee of Mayo County Council who in 2002 applied for one of a number of Administrative Officer grade promotional positions in which she was successful and was subsequently placed in the vacant Castlebar Town Clerk position at the time.
Management contended that there was a clear distinction between Town Clerks appointed prior to the 1998 PCW Clause 2 (iii), who were specifically recruited for such a competition, by the Town Council and their salary level was determined by the town’s population size. Such successful candidates, if previously employed by the County Council, were required to resign from their employment and take up their position with the Town Council. Whereas, those recruited to the Town Clerk position after the PCW (1998), continued to be employed by the County Council and were fully interchangeable with any other positions within the County Council.
In 2002, IMPACT served a claim on LGMSB on behalf of a number of specified Town Clerks who had specifically applied and competed for advertised positions of Town Clerk, which resulted in a collective agreement between IMPACT and LGMSB.
The Court was presented with conflicting views particularly in relation to how Castlebar Town Council fits in to the overall scheme of arrangements within Mayo County Council principally in terms of functionality and reporting structures. The Claimant maintains that she is functioning as a traditional Town Clerk reporting to the Town Manager and Town Council.
Notwithstanding the confusion, it is clear that the Claimant was appointed to Administrative Officer Grade VII under Better Local Government (BLG), assigned to the position of Town Clerk in Castlebar Town Council and this position was not one of those encompassed by the IMPACT claim and resulting collective agreement. Therefore, the Court is satisfied that the Claimant is appropriately graded. However, the Court recommends that her functions as a Grade VII and reporting arrangements should be further clarified and confirmed.
The Court upholds the Employer’s appeal and overturns the Rights Commissioner’s Recommendation.
The Court so decides.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
27th April, 2009______________________
JFDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to John Foley, Court Secretary.