FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : TEAGASC - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY IRISH MUNICIPAL, PUBLIC AND CIVIL TRADE UNION) DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Mr Shanahan |
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 Assistant with Cork City Council for a period of time between 1976 and 1979. In 1997 the Worker commenced her currently held employment with Teagasc and at that time she requested that her former experience with Cork City Council be recognised for the purposes of the calculation and application of incremental credit. The Employer denied the Worker's request, advising that she is ineligible for incremental credit on the basis that she did not hold three years' previous Public Sector experience. The Union contends that in line with the Department of Finance Circular 21/2004, the Worker is entitled to the retrospective application of incremental credit. The Union further contends that the Worker did not benefit from the removal of age-related points on the scale when new Clerical Officer scales were introduced and as such she should be entitled to incremental credit. The Employer rejects the Union's claim arguing that the Worker did not satisfy the qualifying criteria as set out in Circular 21/2004 as she did not hold the requisite number of years of previous service. The Employer maintains that the Worker was not affected by the removal of age-related points of the scale as she had already progressed to a higher point on the scale.
On the 21st July, 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 27th September, 2012.
The Union agreed to be bound by the Court’s Recommendation.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Worker has been treated in an inequitable manner as the Employer has refused to grant her incremental credit.
2. In line with Circular 21/2004 the Worker is entitled to incremental credit on the basis of her previous relevant experience.
3. The Union on behalf of its member is seeking the retrospective application of incremental credit to be applied from October, 2002.
EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Worker does not qualify for incremental credit as she does not hold three years' previous experience, as per the criteria set out in Circular 21/2004.
2. The Employer has on numerous occassions sought clarification from the Department of Finance in relation to the Worker's request for the application of incremental credit. The Department of Finance has confirmed that the Worker does not satisfy the criteria required for the application of incremental credit.
3. The Employer is not in a position to concede the Union's claim.
RECOMMENDATION:
The matter before the Court concerns a claim by the Union on behalf of a worker seeking the application of incremental credit for her previous service with Cork City Council.
The Union submitted to the Court that Circular 21/2004 was not implemented correctly in respect of the Claimant’s previous service. The Employer stated that it was satisfied that the Circular was correctly applied and that the Department of Finance had confirmed on a number of occasions that it was correctly applied.
The Employer stated that Circular 21/2004 stipulated that the Claimant’s qualifying service could not take account of her 2.4 years’ previous service in Cork City Council as it states that“Qualifying service means actual service less three years in the case of clerical officers ..… to take account of points that have been eliminated from the incremental scales.”
The Union submitted that the Employer had not posed the correct question to the Department as it did not take account of the fact that the Claimant had not benefited from age-related points while she was previously employed with Cork City Council.
Having considered the submissions of both sides the Court is of the view that the parties should revert back to the Department of Finance for final clarification on the application of incremental credit for the Claimant’s previous relevant experience with Cork City Council from 18thOctober 1976 until 23rdFebruary 1979 and specifically refer to the point that the Claimant has not benefited from age-related points during her previous employment with Cork City Council. The Court recommends that with this further clarification from the Department of Finance the matter should be brought to a conclusion on the basis of the response given.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
31st October 2012______________________
SCDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Sharon Cahill, Court Secretary.