FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : HSE - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION) DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Ms Tanham |
1. Regrading Claim
BACKGROUND:
2. This dispute concerns a claim to upgrade the Worker's post from Boilerman to Multi-Task Attendant. The Union referred this case to the Labour Court on 18th January, 2011, in accordance with Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969, and agreed to be bound by the Court's Recommendation. A Labour Court hearing took place on 28th February, 2012.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3 1 The Worker had given over three decades of dedicated service.
2 The Worker's role had been expanded beyond that of a Boilerman.
3 The Worker should have been upgraded accordingly.
EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:
4 1 This cost-increasing claim is prohibited by the terms of the Public Service Agreement.
2 Claims for upgrading are prohibited by the Moratorium on Recruitment and Promotions in the Public Service.
3. Notwithstanding the above points, the Worker was correctly graded and remunerated.
RECOMMENDATION:
The issue before the Court concerns a claim by the Union on behalf of a Claimant who retired in January 2011. The Court is satisfied that the claim was submitted to a Rights Commissioner and to the Court prior to his retirement date.
The Union claimed that the Claimant should be upgraded from pay Band 4 to Band 3.
The Claimant sought the upgrading in August 2008. At the time local discussions failed to resolve this issue and subsequently Management was prohibited from considering any such claims due to the Government Moratorium on Recruitment and Promotion in the Public Service. Furthermore, it submitted that claims of a cost-increasing nature were debarred under the terms of the Public Service Agreement 2010 – 2014. In any event Management was of the view that the Claimant was correctly graded under Band 4 and submitted that there was no merit in the claim.
The Claimant had been employed as a Boilerman for 32 years. The Union contended that since the removal of the steamboilers in July 2009 the Claimant’s role had expanded and such duties should more appropriately be reflected by a higher banding pay scale. The Union submitted that his role became that of a Multi-Task Attendant covered by pay Band 3.
Having examined the submissions of both sides and based on the information supplied on the duties the Claimant was required to perform since July 2009 the Court is not satisfied they were the duties associated with the role of a Multi-Task Attendant and consequently the Court does not find merit in the Claimant’s claim.
Accordingly the claim before the Court for an upgrade of the Claimant’s pay is rejected. The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
26th March, 2012______________________
JMcCDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Jonathan McCabe, Court Secretary.