FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : AN POST - AND - COMMUNICATIONS WORKERS' UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Doherty Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Former Auxiliary Postal Sorters-Incremental Credit On Promotion
BACKGROUND:
2. The issue before the Court is a claim by the Union that Part-time Postal Sorters should have been treated equally to full-time Postal Sorters on promotion. Following an internal Post Office Clerk competition a number of part-time Postal Sorters were promoted and appointed full-time Post Office Clerks. The part-time Postal Sorters were treated differently from full-time Postal Sorters in the calculation of their pay on promotion. It is the Union's claim that prior to their promotion, the part-time Postal Sorters concerned were working 37.5 hours per week for a minimum of 12 months and effectively they were remunerated as full-time Postal Sorters. The Union are seeking that the workers concerned are treated the same as full-time staff on promotion particularly given that they had worked full-time hours prior to their promotion. The Company's position is that this case is prior to the Protection of Employees Part Time Work Act, 2001 and that different hourly rates of pay for full-time and part-time staff applied. The rules and regulations in relation to starting pay on promotion were applied in relation to the workers concerned. The Company also state that since 2001, all staff who have been promoted have had their pay calculated in line with legislation.
The dispute could not be resolved at local level and was the subject of a Conciliation Conference under the auspices of the Labour Relations Commission. As agreement was not be reached, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 14th October, 2008 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 8th January, 2008.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1 Part-time staff promoted to the grade of full-time Post Office Clerk prior to December, 2001 recieved no incremental credit for prior service. The Company did not take into account the fact that they were working full time hours in the grade of Postal Sorter and were remunerated as such, prior to their promotion.
2 Part-time Postal Sorters who have periods of full-time working receive appropriate credit, when they are appointed to full-time Postal Sorter positions.
3 The workers concerned were at substantive grade of part-time Postal Sorter. The Union is at a loss to understand as to why the Company determined that they cannot be treated exactly the same as full time staff. The number of staff involved in this claim is relatively small.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1 Part-time Postal Sorter staff promoted to full-time Post Office Clerk positions had their starting pay calculated fully in line with the regulations in place at the time of their promotion.
2 The period of the appointments of the workers concerned to Post Office Clerk preceded the date on which the Protection of Employees Part Time Work Act, 2001 came into effect.
3 There is no provision that incremental credit should be applied when a part-time Postal Sorter is directly promoted to a grade other than full-time Postal Sorter.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court notes that significant progress was made at conciliation in seeking to resolve this dispute but that final agreement was not possible.
The Court fully accepts that the Company acted properly within the then current regulation in determining the starting pay on promotion of the workers concerned. Nonetheless, some anomalies have resulted from the application of those regulations.
The Union quantified its claim at conciliation as amounting to between €1,900 and €2,700 in the case of six of the workers concerned and €24,200 in the case of the seventh worker. Having regard to all the circumstances of the case the Court recommends that the Company offer and the Union accepts a payment of 50% of the amount quantified at conciliation in respect of each worker concerned. In the case of the seventh worker her salary should also be adjusted so as to prevent the continuation of the anomaly.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
23rd January, 2009______________________
DNChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to David P Noonan, Court Secretary.