FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : EIRCOM LIMITED - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY COMMUNICATIONS WORKERS' UNION) DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Ms Doyle Worker Member: Mr Shanahan |
1. Appeal of Rights Commissioner's Recommendation r-096204-ir-10/MMG.
BACKGROUND:
2. This dispute concerns a claim that the Worker has terms and conditions of employment which are inferior to other Partnership Coordinators. This matter was referred to a Rights Commissioner for investigation and recommendation. On the 19th July, 2011 the Rights Commissioner issued the following Recommendation:-
- “Having carefully examined the evidence as presented at the hearing by the claimants I have formed the opinion that the claimants have not presented a valid complaint”.
- “Having carefully examined the evidence as presented at the hearing by the claimants I have formed the opinion that the claimants have not presented a valid complaint”.
3. 1.TheWorker signed the same contract of employment as all the other Partnership Coordinators.
2.TheWorker does the same work as all the other Partnership Coordinators.
3.TheWorker is entitled to the same terms and conditions of employment as all the other Partnership Coordinators.
EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The contract of employment for Partnership Coordinators was agreed with the Union and then signed by the Worker.
2. The Company is not in a financial position to entertain such a cost-increasing claim.
3. Concession of this claim would lead to many similar cost-increasing claims being taken by other Workers.
DECISION:
The matter before the Court concerns an appeal by the Union on behalf of the worker of a Rights Commissioner’s Recommendation which found against his claim. The claim before the Rights Commissioner concerned the pensionability of a car allowance and an increase in annual leave entitlements. The Appellant was appointed as a Partnership Coordinator in January 2006.
The Union disputed the Company’s application of the car allowance on a non-pensionable basis and sought to be treated in the same manner as other Partnership Coordinators employed prior to his appointment. It referred to a letter from the manager of the Eircom Superannuation Scheme, which was dated 31stMarch 2006, which confirmed that the allowance paid was pensionable under the Scheme.
The Union submitted that as the Appellant’s rate of pay was set at the level of a Technical Team Leader Grade, he should receive the same annual leave as the latter grade.
The Company disputed the Union’s claims and held that terms were agreed in 2005 with the Union on the conditions applicable to Partnership Coordinators going forward, these terms were different to the terms and conditions which had previously applied. During his induction for the role, the Company explained the changes to him and the Appellant signed the contract which stated that the allowance referred to was non-pensionable.
Having considered the submission of both sides the Court notes that within the context of the appointment of additional Partnership Coordinators an agreement was entered into in 2005 with the Union on the terms and conditions of employment applicable to Partnership Coordinators going forward. The contracts of employment for those newly appointed reflected these terms and it was signed by the Appellant accordingly. Therefore, the Court does not find merit in the claim that the car allowance paid to the Appellant should be designated as a pensionable allowance. However, the Court is of the view that if the Appellant wishes to seek clarification on this issue directly from the Superannuation Scheme itself then the Company should comply with any clarification issued.
On the matter of the claim for extra annual leave, the Court is satisfied that the linkage with the Technical Team Leader Grade was solely for the purpose of assigning a rate of pay to the Partnership Coordinators role. It was decided to link the role to the maximum point of the Technical Team Leader Grade and did not infer any other linkage. Accordingly, the Court accepts that the Appellant retains his annual leave in accordance with his substantive PDTM grade.
The findings and decision of this Court are somewhat different to the findings and conclusion of the Rights Commissioner which is varied accordingly. The Court rejects the Union’s appeal.
The Court so decides.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
13th December, 2011______________________
JMcCDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Jonathan McCabe, Court Secretary.