FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : LIMERICK CITY COUNCIL - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY FRANK MCDONNELL) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Ms Cryan Worker Member: Ms Tanham |
1. Appeal of Recommendation of a Rights Commissioner R-091791-IR-10/POB.
BACKGROUND:
2. The case before the Court concerns the Worker's appeal of a Rights Commissioner's recommendation. The Worker is currently employed as a Foreman in Limerick City Council. The dispute relates specifically to the Worker's claim for the retrospective payment of arrears in pay increases which came about as a result of his refusal to participate in the Employer's move to Paypath, a system which allows for the electronic payment of salaries directly into the bank accounts of employees. The Employer introduced Paypath in 2006 and at this time the Worker refused to participate in this process. As a result, the Worker was not entitled to pay increases for a period of time from 2006 up until 2010, when the Worker eventually signed up to Paypath. The Worker has since received any pay increases awarded from 2010 onwards, however it is his claim that he should receive the pay increases he did not receive when he was not signed up to Paypath. The Employer rejects the Worker's claim arguing that the pay awards were agreed under the 2003 Parallel Benchmarking and under Sustaining Progress and Towards 2016. This required the implementation of the Modernisation/Change Agenda set out in Circular Letter EL4/04, which outlined that cooperation in Paypath was an essential requirement. The Employer asserts that the Worker's refusal to participate in Paypath resulted in him not receiving pay awards between 2006 and 2010. The matter was referred to a Rights Commissioner for investigation and recommendation. On the 4th March 2011 the Rights Commissioner issued his recommendation as follows:
"I am of the view that a one off lump sum payment of €5,000 is appropriate in the circumstances (which includes the above amount of 1,017.67 pounds). I propose both sides consider this solution as appropriate in these circumstances and give it serious consideration to try and finally bring a resolution to this matter".
On the 1st April, 2011 the Worker 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 4th April, 2012.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. Exceptional personal circumstances prevented the Worker from participation in Paypath at the time it was introduced by the Employer.
2. The Worker contends that he was omitted from ten pay increases as a result of his refusal to participate in Paypath.
3. The Worker has suffered a substantial loss in earnings as a result of the Employer's non-payment of the pay increases sought by the Worker.
EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Employer rejects the Worker's claim for retrospective pay increases given that it was his own choice to refuse to participate in Paypath.
2. The Employer is of the view that the Worker was aware that the pay increases were awarded in line with employees' cooperation with Paypath.
3. The Worker was afforded every opportunity to sign up to Paypath and to receive pay increases in line with his colleagues however he refused to do so until some time after the introduction of Paypath.
DECISION:
The Court has consistently taken the view that cooperation with Paypath is an integral requirement of the agreement associated with the parallel benchmarking process. It is clear that the Worker in this case decided not to cooperate with Paypath and he did so in the full knowledge of the consequences of his decision. While some facility existed for exemptions from the requirement in issue in exceptional circumstances the Worker never applied for such an exemption.
In all the circumstances of the case the Court accepts that the City Council acted reasonably and in accordance with the relevant agreement. It is noted that while upholding the Council's position the Rights Commissioner awarded the worker compensation in the amount of€5,000 inclusive of an award of€1,017.67, which the Council accepts was due when the Worker consented to Paypath. While this latter amount is clearly due and owing to the Worker the Court can see no basis for the additional amount recommended by the Rights Commissioner. Accordingly the Court amends the Rights Commissioner's recommendation by deleting the compensatory amount in excess of the€1,017.67 referred to.
The Rights Commissioner's recommendation is amended accordingly.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
23rd April 2012______________________
SCChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Sharon Cahill, Court Secretary.