FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : NORTH TIPPERARY VEC - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY IRISH MUNICIPAL, PUBLIC AND CIVIL TRADE UNION) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Ms Cryan Worker Member: Ms Tanham |
1. Incremental Credit.
BACKGROUND:
2. The case before the Court concerns a claim by the Union on behalf of its member in relation to the application of incremental credit. The Worker was previously employed as a Clerical Officer with North Tipperary VEC for a period of time between 2004 and 2006, before moving to her currently held position within the Health Service Executive (HSE). Upon appointment to the HSE, the Worker was awarded incremental credit based on her experience with the VEC. Prior to the commencement of her employment with the VEC the Worker was employed as a Telephonist within the former Department of Post and Telegraph for a period of nine years. However, when she was appointed to the VEC, this experience was not recognised for the purpose of the application of incremental credit. It is the Worker's claim that the Clerical Officer post is analogous to the Telephonist role and she should have been awarded incremental credit in line with Circular F33/02which takes into consideration previous working experience for the purpose of determining the level of incremental credit to be awarded. The Employer rejects the Worker's claim arguing that the Worker's posts were not analogous hence she was appropriately placed on the salary scale and she is not entitled to any additional credits.
On the 6th December, 2010 the Union on behalf of its member referred the issue to the Labour Court, in accordance with Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 3rd April, 2012.
The Worker agreed to be bound by the Court’s Recommendation.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Worker has nine years relevant experience in an analogous role to that of the Clerical Officer position.
2. The Worker maintains that she should be awarded incremental credit in line with Circular F33/02.
3. The Worker is currently seeking retrospective application of incremental credit.
EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Employer contends that the role of the Telephonist and Clerical Officer are not analogous and further contends that the Worker's experience in the Telephonist Role cannot be recognised for the purpose of awarding incremental credit.
2. The Employer has fully complied with the terms of Circular F33/02.
3. The Employer is not in a position to retrospectively apply incremental credit in this instance.
RECOMMENDATION:
It seems that the fundamental criterion under Circular letter F33/02 is that the prior service relied upon in seeking incremental credit was in a 'similar grade' in a relevant Authority.
While the duties of a telephonist in the former Department of Posts and Telegraphs and that of a Clerical Officer may be different, it is clear that they were regarded as analogous by the former Department.
In these circumstances the Court is satisfied that the Claimant met the criterion under the Circular and should have been afforded the incremental credit claimed by the Union on her behalf.
Accordingly the Court recommends that the Union's claim be conceded.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
23rd April 2012______________________
SCChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Sharon Cahill, Court Secretary.