FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : HEALTH SERVICE EXECUTIVE - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Hayes Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Appeal of Recommendation of a Rights Commissioner r-089623-ir-10/EH
BACKGROUND:
2. The Worker is employed as a General Manager with the HSE since 1999. He has sought the application of a parity allowance that was negotiated on behalf of General Managers in 2004 who were members of another Trade Union.
The issue involves a claim by a Worker. The matter was referred to a Rights Commissioner for investigation and recommendation. On the 29th June 2010, the Rights Commissioner issued his Recommendation as follows:-
"I recommend that the (named) Worker should receive the allowance of €8,000 per annum and it should be backdated to the date of implementation of the agreement."
On the 26th July, 2010 the Employer appealed the Rights Commissioners 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 1st December, 2010
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The HSE has refused to accept that they have made an error in omitting the name of the Worker who was at the time an existing General Manager from the list of those that would receive the allowance.
2. The Worker is the only General Manager in situ at the time to be omitted from the list.
EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1.The allowance claimed for was implemented on a clearly ring-fenced basis to those holding a particular position at the time of implementation. The allowance does not apply beyond that restricted basis and is not applicable in these circumstances.
2. The knock-on effect of paying other General Managers in post in 2004 would amount to in excess of €2.5m to date plus ongoing costs of €0.3m per annum.
DECISION:
The Court has carefully considered both the oral and written submissions of the parties.
In the unique circumstances of this case the Court has found no grounds upon which it could vary the Rights Commissioner's Recommendation. Therefore, the Rights Commissioner's Recommendation is upheld.
The Court so decides.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Brendan Hayes
30th December, 2010______________________
JFDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to John Foley, Court Secretary.