FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : HSE (CENTRAL SUPPLIES) - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Hayes Employer Member: Ms Doyle Worker Member: Ms Tanham |
1. Appeal of Recommendation of a Rights Commissioner R-089061-Ir-09/RG.
BACKGROUND:
2. The case concerns an appeal by the worker of Rights Commissioner's Recommendation no. r-089061-ir-09/RG.
The issue concerns a worker who is employed as a Storesperson in the HSE Central Supplies Unit in Tullamore. The worker was incorrectly paid at a higher rate of pay (Band 1) following a local agreement between HSE and SIPTU and the subsequent Benchmarking Agreement in 2002.
Management's position is that once the error was discovered an agreement was concluded between the parties to recoup the overpayment. It was agreed that the "Mark Time" principle would be used which would allow the overpayment to be recouped without any immediate financial loss to the worker.
The dispute was referred to a Rights Commissioner for investigation. Her recommendation issued on the 23rd September 2010 and recommended that the worker should accept the "Mark Time" agreement as negotiated by SIPTU on behalf of all workers affected at the time. The Rights Commissioner also recommended that the worker be paid €1,000 compensation on the basis that his contract of employment placed him on Band 1 and that he had a legitimate expectation that he would attain a certain level of earnings.
On the 3rd November, 2010, the worker appealed the Rights Commissioner's Recommendation in accordance with Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969.
A Labour Court hearing took place on 13th March, 2012.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
2. 1. The contract of employment clearly states that the worker would be remunerated at Band 1 and attain a certain level of earnings. The Union (on behalf of the worker) is seeking that the terms of his employment contract be applied in the instant case.
MANAGEMENT'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. Management and the Union entered into an agreement on the fairest way of recouping the overpayment without the workers incurring any immediate financial loss. This agreement was accepted by all other workers who were in the same position. If this claim is conceded it places the worker at a distinct advantage over his colleagues which would be unacceptable and unfair.
DECISION:
The Court has carefully considered the submissions of both parties to this appeal.
The Court finds no merit in the Union's claim. Accordingly, the appeal is not allowed and the Recommendation of the Rights Commissioner is upheld.
The Court so decides.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Brendan Hayes
17th April, 2012.______________________
AH.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Andrew Heavey, Court Secretary.