FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : OFFICE OF PUBLIC WORKS - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION) DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Ms Cryan Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Failure of Employer to honour an Agreement on Upgrade.
BACKGROUND:
2. The case before the Court concerns a claim by the Union on behalf of its member currently employed as a Works Clerk in the Office of Public Works (OPW) stores located in Ballina, Co Mayo. It is the Union's claim that the Worker was previously promised an upgrade from his current position of Works Clerk to that of a Stores Foreman (band 3) however he is yet to have been promoted. The Union asserts that the Worker has been carrying out the role and duties associated with the higher position and was informed that his promotion would be formalised in 2011. He currently remains in his present position of Works Clerk. The Employer rejects the Union's claim and contends that it is strictly bound by the terms of the Public Service Agreement 2010-2014 and is obliged to adhere to the current moratorium on recruitment and promotion.
On the 3rd November, 2011 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 8th March, 2012.
The Union agreed to be bound by the Court’s Recommendation.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3.1. The Union contends that the Worker was given a commitment and as a result took on extra duties and responsibilites in the belief that he would be upgraded at a certain point in time.
2. The Union asserts that the Worker has been and continues to be treated in an inequitable manner as the Employer is enjoying the benefits of his skills and expertise at no added financial cost to them.
3. The Union alleges that despite the current ban on recruitment and promotion, a number of promotions and upgrades have been awarded in other areas of the organisation.
EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:
4.1. The Employer is bound by the terms of the Public Service Agreement 2010-2014 and does not hold discretion in awarding promotions or upgrades.
2. In line with the Government ban on recruitment and promotion, any upgrade or promotion must be sanctioned by the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform. It is only in the most exceptional circumstances that upgrades and promotions have been approved.
3. Concession of the Union's claim is seen as cost-increasing for the Employer. The Employer maintains that cost-increasing claims are procluded under the terms of the Public Services Agreement and so rejects the Worker's claim.
RECOMMENDATION:
The case before the Court by the Union on behalf of a worker concerns a claim for an upgrade from Works Clerk grade to Foreman Band III on the basis that he is carrying out the associated duties and he had received a commitment from management that the upgrade would be formalised by April 2011.
Management contended that there was no obligation on it to upgrade the Claimant as the claim was cost increasing and therefore not maintainable under the terms of the Public Service Agreement 2010 – 2014. Furthermore, it was restricted from conceding a promotion due to the Moratorium on Recruitment and Promotions in the Public Sector.
The Court notes that management acknowledged that the Claimant was given to understand that he would most likely be promoted once he had satisfactorily completed three years as a Works Clerk and on the recommendation of the Regional Engineer.
Having considered the submissions of both parties is satisfied that there is merit in the claim, however, due to the restrictions imposed by the terms of the Public Service Agreement 2010-2014 and the Moratorium on Promotion and Recruitment in the Public Sector the Court must reject the claim at this time.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
21st March 2012______________________
SCDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Sharon Cahill, Court Secretary.