FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : OFFICE OF PUBLIC WORKS - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Hayes Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Ms Tanham |
1. Upgrading
BACKGROUND:
2. This dispute concerns a claim by the Union on behalf of a Worker for retrospection of the upgrading of her post. This dispute could not be resolved at local level and was the subject of a Conciliation Conference under the auspices of the Labour Relations Commission. As agreement was not reached, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 22nd September, 2011, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990.
A Labour Court hearing took place on the 3rd October, 2012.
UNION’S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. In January, 2007, the Union submitted a claim on behalf of five members for an upgrade.
2. Four of the claims were successful and the Worker’s claim was ignored.
3. The Worker has remained at entry level grade for the past seven years.
EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The treatment of any claim of this nature has to be viewed against the backdrop of the absolutely unprecedented state of the public finances.
2. The parlous state of the OPW’s own finances and the extraordinary pressure on payroll resources preclude any consideration of meeting demands for retrospective payment.
3. Under clause 1.27 of the Public Service Agreement, an exceptional consideration was offered in this case.
RECOMMENDATION:
In all the circumstances of this case the Court recommends that the Claimant / Union accept the settlement terms offered by the Office of Public Works in its letter of 28 March 2012.
The Court so recommends
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Brendan Hayes
CR______________________
15th October 2012Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Ciaran Roche, Court Secretary.