FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : CITIZENS INFORMATION BOARD (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - A WORKER (O'REGAN LITTLE SOLICITORS) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Doherty Worker Member: Mr Nash |
1. Appeal of a Recommendation of a Rights Commissioner R-074700-IR-8/TB.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Worker has been employed since 1998 as a full-time Information Assistant (formerly Paper Keeper), clerical officer grade, reporting to the Manager, HR and Administration.
The Citizens Information Board (CIB) is a statutory agency that employs approximately 105 people nationwide. The CIB is responsible for supporting the provision of information, advice and advocacy on a wide range of social and civil services. It is governed by the Citizens Information Act 2007 and the Comhairle Act 2000. The Board comes under the remit of the Department of Social and Family Affairs.
The case before the Court centres on the outcome of a number of grievances taken by the Worker between December 2007 and April 2008. The Worker took three different grievances and in doing so relied upon the Company's Grievance Procedure. The issues concerned the obligation to attend Monday Morning Meetings and take notes, a requirement to relieve on the switchboard and issues concerning re-grading and retrospective payment. The issues could not be resolved at local level.
The Worker referred the matters to a Rights Commissioner for investigation and recommendation. The Rights Commissioner's recommendation issued on the 9th July 2009 as follows:-
"Under the Industrial Relations Act I recommend that the claimant be relieved of any obligation to attend the Monday meeting. That he not be required to relieve on the Switchboard. That he be upgraded to Grade IV in accordance with the job evaluation recommendation from June 2007."
On the 14th August 2009, the Claimant and the Employer separately 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 27th January, 2010.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1.The Worker maintains that he was 'compelled' to attend Monday Morning Meetings despite the fact that his colleagues were under no such compulsion.
2. The Worker contends that certain staff (not including the Worker) wereselected to provide switchboard cover and an agreement finally entered into with the Employer. As new staff were recruited, the switch/reception cover was inserted into their job descriptions. For the majority of staff, including the Worker, switchboard/ reception cover was not an issue as it was never part of their jobs.
3.In 2006 the Worker's post was independently evaluated and recommended for re-grade to Grade 4and that tasks not included should be clarified. In May 2009 the Worker was offered a re-grade on what he maintains were disagreeable and unacceptable terms which he was unable to accept.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1.The Monday Morning Meetings are held weekly in Head Office and provide an information exchange between staff. All staff in Head Office are expected to attend and a minute of the meeting is taken on a rota. This results in each staff member being responsible for taking the minutes once a year.
2. The Company maintains that it is a normal request for peers of the Worker to relieve on the switchboard/ reception. It is a duty which applies to all staff at the regraded post level.
3. The Department of Finance granted the post re-grade in April 2009 subject to a number of conditions. Moving to appoint the Worker into the regraded post can only be achieved if all the conditions set down by the relevant state Departments are complied with, including reception cover and assisting in supply and set up of conference materials.
DECISION:
The Court has carefully considered the extensive submissions made by the parties to this appeal and cross-appeal.
The Court does not accept that a sustainable case has been made out as to why the Claimant should not attend the Monday meetings and undertake switchboard duties on the same terms as all other staff. Accordingly, the Court cannot uphold that aspect of the Rights Commissioner's recommendation.
In all other respects, the Court regards the recommendation of the Rights Commissioner as reasonable and in accord with the facts of the case.
Accordingly, it is the decision of the Court that the Rights Commissioner's recommendation be amended so as to provide that the Claimant attend the Monday meeting and perform switchboard duties when requested to do so on the same terms as all other employees. In all other respects the recommendation of the Rights Commissioner is affirmed.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
1st February, 2010______________________
MG.Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Madelon Geoghegan, Court Secretary.