FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : MEATH VEC - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Ms Doyle Worker Member: Mr Nash |
1. Appeal of Recommendation of A Rights Commissioner R-075138-Ir-09/JT
BACKGROUND:
2. The issue involves a claim by the Union on behalf of its member in relation to a reduction made in his salary as a result of a change in his contract of employment. The Claimant has been employed as a full-time caretaker since 2001. In 2004, the Claimant was appointed as a temporary part-time craft's person while remaining in his full-time caretaker's role for twenty five percent of his working time. The Claimant remained in this position until 2008 when, due to budgetary constraints, the Claimant was informed that he would recommence his duties as full-time caretaker hence returning to his caretaker's salary. The Union contends that despite this unilateral pay cut, its member continues to carry out craft's person duties while receiving his caretaker's salary and are seeking compensation for loss of earnings as well as re-instatement into the higher paid post. The Employer argued that they were not in a position to re-instate the Claimant into his seconded post due to financial and budgetary restrictions imposed on them. No agreement could be reached between both parties. The matter was referred to a Rights Commissioner for investigation and recommendation. On the 10th February 2010, the Rights Commissioner issued his Recommendation as follows:
"I have considered the submissions made by both parties and I note that the respondent has been extremely satisfied with the work carried out by the claimant when he was in his role of craft person. I further note that the respondent stated that this was a temporary position subject to review from time to time and based on funding allocations. I note that there has been a cutback in funding to the respondent and I accept that the arrangement as an acting craft's person was a temporary position. Therefore, I have decided that the claimant should be paid an amount of €5,000 and to continue in his role of craft's person position at [place of employment named]. Should a requirement for a temporary caretaker be required and the claimant should be considered for that position".
On the 16th March 2010, the Union on behalf of its member 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 1st July 2010.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
1. The Employer, in demoting the Claimant to the caretaker position, are in breach of contract and have imposed a unilateral pay cut on the Claimant that is not in line with Department wide pay cuts.
2.The Claimant, since his demotion, continues to carry out the duties associated with the higher paid position for in excess of ninety per cent of his working time. His role and corresponding salary do not reflect this.
EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:
1. The position of Crafts person was temporary and was subject to organisational requirements and available resources. The Claimant was made aware of the temporary nature of the position and was issued with temporary contracts of employment.
2. The decision to revert the Claimant to his original role was carried out in line with reductions in public pay and expenditure and following a review of staffing arrangements within the organisation. The Claimant was treated in a fair manner and was offered compensation and the return to his original position.
DECISION:
It appears clear on the information before the Court that the Claimant was employed at higher duties in an acting capacity and that all material times his substansive post was that of caretaker.
In the circumstances of the case the Court believes that the Claimant's acting position effectively became redundant. In these circumstances he should receive compensation for the loss of the additional remuneration which he earned whilst acting in the higher role.
It is the decision of the Court that the Claimant should be paid compensation in the amount of €10,000 in full and final settlement of his claim arising from his reversion to his original role. Furthermore, should a post similar to that which the Claimant held while he was in receipt of the higher remuneration become available in the future, he ought to be appointed to that post.
The Rights Commissioner's Recommendation is varied accordingly.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
19th July 2010______________________
SCChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Sharon Cahill, Court Secretary.