FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : HSE WEST - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY IRISH MUNICIPAL, PUBLIC AND CIVIL TRADE UNION) DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Doherty Worker Member: Mr Nash |
1. Appeal of Rights Commissioner's Recommendation r-061653-ir-08-MH
BACKGROUND:
2. This case is an appeal by the employer of Rights Commissioner's Recommendation r-061653-ir-08-MH.
The issue in dispute concerns an employee who is employed as administrator in Mayo Primary Community and Continuing Care (MPCCC) and is graded at Grade VII. His claim relates to his alignement to Grade VIII.
Management's position is that it accepts the post should be Grade VIII as it is in Galway and Roscommon County Councils but that a difficulty exists in the current climate as to regrading and application of higher pay rates.
The matter was referred to a Rights Commissioner for investigation. His Recommendation issued on 6th January 2009 and found that the worker should be aligned to Grade VIII in line with his duties and level of responsibility.
On 12th February 2009, Management appealed the Rights Commissioners Recommendation in accordance with Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on 17th April, 2009.
MANAGEMENT'S ARGUMENTS
3 1 Management accept the validity of the claim and the duties and level of responsibility in the work carried out. It is not possible, however, as a result of budgetry constraints and a moratorium on recruitment and regrading to obtain the necessary funding for the application of the higher grade.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
4 1 The worker's duties and level of responsibility are appropriate to those of Grade VIII. He has been carrying out the role to date and should be regraded accordingly.
DECISION:
This is an appeal by the HSE West of a Rights Commissioner’s Recommendation, which found in favour of the worker’s claim for regrading from Grade VII to Grade VIII. The worker is employed as Administrator, Mayo Primary Community and Continuing Care (MPCCC).
While local and regional management are supportive of his claim for regrading on the basis of the role, responsibilities and duties performed by him, it has not been possible to authorise his regrading despite compliance with the required process. This process was approved by the National Director for Primary Community and Continuing Care.
However, it was not approved by the National Director for Employment Monitoring due to budgetary constraints, which imposed certain criteria on regrading applications and by Circular 10/2009, which imposed a moratorium on recruitment/regrading of staff.
Having considered the oral and written submissions of both parties, the Court notes the affirmation that his role, responsibilities and duties are those appropriate to Grade VIII, however, due to extraneous matters, it has not been possible to sanction his regrading. Furthermore, the Court notes that his position has been the subject of
consideration for some substantial period of time and now events have overtaken matters. In all the circumstances of this case, the Court finds that his claim should not be impeded as a result of lack of progress by the appropriate authorities and he should be place on Grade VIII, with due respect to the function he carries out and he should receive the appropriate retrospective payments back to October 2005.
Accordingly, the appeal is denied and the Rights Commissioner’s Recommendation is upheld.
The Court so decides.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
6th May 2009______________________
AHDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Andrew Heavey, Court Secretary.