FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : KILKENNY BOROUGH COUNCIL (REPRESENTED BY THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT MANAGEMENT SERVICES BOARD - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Hayes Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Mr Shanahan |
1. Additional duties being imposed on the worker.
BACKGROUND:
2. This case concerns a dispute between Kilkenny County Council and SIPTU in relation to a claim for additional remuneration on the basis of extra duties being carried out by the worker. The Union (on behalf of the worker) is claiming a regrading to the Revenue Collector Grade on the basis that the additional duties now being carried out include collection of monies from a total of 64 parking meters, lodging of monies as well as servicing three barrier car parks and driving between locations. Management's position is that a settlement agreement was concluded between the parties and placed the worker on the maximum of the Foreman's rate of pay.
On the 1st of July 2011, the worker referred the dispute to the Labour Court in accordance with Section 20(1) of Industrial Relations Act, 1969 and agreed to be bound by the Court's Recommendation.
A Labour Court hearing took place on 6th June 2012.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3 1 The settlement agreement previously concluded between the parties was signed in good faith and was based on the duties that applied at that time. Since then, additional duties are required of the worker and the Union is seeking that the appropriate rate of pay/grade be applied for the duties carried out.
EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:
4 1 The worker has already been regraded to the maximum point on the Foreman's rate of pay on the basis of the additional duties being carried out. This regrading formed part of a settlement agreement concluded between the parties. It is management's view that the worker is now being paid the appropriate rate of pay for the work being carried out.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has carefully considered the submissions of both parties to this dispute.
In all the circumstances of this case the Court finds that the increased workload involved for this worker is in the nature of the normal ongoing change that is a feature of all contracts of employment and does not constitute grounds for the grade claim presented.
The Court notes that a mobile phone is provided to the worker concerned for operational and security purposes only and is not intended to have any wider or more general use.
The Court further notes that the worker concerned is not required to respond to calls outside of his normal Monday to Friday working week.
Finally the Court notes that there has been some shortcomings in the manner in which the worker in this case has been advised of proposed changes to his work levels. Noting management’s commitment to correct these shortcomings the Court recommends that the necessary arrangements are put in place to ensure proper, timely and adequate notification of all proposed changes to the worker concerned.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Brendan Hayes
17th July 2012______________________
AHDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Andrew Heavey, Court Secretary.