FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : HSE WEST - AND - A WORKER DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Hayes Employer Member: Ms Cryan Worker Member: Mr Shanahan |
1. Appeal of Rights Commissioner Recommendation No: r-122330-ir-12/SR
BACKGROUND:
2. This case concerns an appeal by the employer of Rights Commissioner Recommendation No: r-122330-ir-12/SR. The issue concerns a claim by the worker, a Grade V employed by the HSE West to be upgraded to a Grade VI on the basis of his duties and responsibilities. The matter was referred to a Rights Commissioner for investigation. A Recommendation issued on the 4th October, 2012 and recommended that an agreed job evaluation take place and that any outcome that was favourable to the worker be implemented. On the 12th November 2012 management appealed the Rights Commissioner's Recommendation in accordance with Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on 27th March, 2013.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
3 1 The worker is carrying out the duties appropriate to a Grade VI post and should be graded accordingly. The Rights Commissioner's recommendation to have the job evaluated is appropriate in the circumstances and acceptable to the worker.
MANAGEMENT'S ARGUMENTS:
4 1 Management cannot agree to carry out a job evaluation as the agreed evaluation scheme has been suspended. In addition there are many employees within the current HSE structure in similar circumstances and concession of this claim would inevitably lead to repercussive claims. All such claims are precluded under the terms of the current Public Service Agreement 2010-2014.
DECISION:
The Court has carefully considered the submissions of both parties to this dispute.
The Claimant argues that the HSE requires him to perform work that is appropriate to a Grade VI employee but remunerates him as a Grade V employee. He submitted a list of Grade VI employees that perform like work to that which he performs. He is seeking to have his job assessed by an independent job comparison procedure to establish whether there is merit in his claim. The HSE submits that the agreed Job Evaluation Procedure has been suspended and there are large numbers of staff in a similar position to the Claimant. It submits that the Complainant’s claim cannot be dealt with in isolation as to do so would be unfair to all other staff in similar circumstances. It further submits that the Claim, were it to be successful, would be debarred under the terms of the Public Service Agreement 2010 -2014.
The dispute before the Court relates to one individual but has far reaching implications for a very large number of HSE employees and for the HSE itself. Accordingly the Court finds that the claim is properly classified as collective in nature and should accordingly be addressed in a manner that is fair to all of the workers affected.
Moreover the Court acknowledges that the terms of the Pubic Services Agreement 2010 -2014 are designed to bring about a radical reconfiguration of the traditional grading structure in the HSE that will, in due course, require a radical rethink of that structure. In this context the Court takes the view that it would be inappropriate to deal with grading issues on an ad hoc basis whilst that Agreement is being worked through.
Accordingly, and without expressing a view on the merits of the Worker’s claim, the Court allows the appeal and sets aside the relevant part of the decision of the Rights Commissioner.
The Court so decides.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Brendan Hayes
18th April 2013______________________
AHDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Andrew Heavey, Court Secretary.