FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : DUBLIN INSTITUTE OF ADVANCED STUDIES - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY IFUT) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Ms Doyle Worker Member: Mr Shanahan |
1. Appeal of Rights Commissioner's Recommendation r-114213-ir-11.
BACKGROUND:
2. This dispute concerns the Workers' claim that he should be upgraded from Experimental Officer to Assistant Professor. This dispute was referred to a Rights Commissioner for investigation and recommendation. On the 8th February, 2012 the Rights Commissioner issued the following Recommendation:-
- "I am of the view that the [Worker] should formally submit a new job description to the [Employer] for review and this should be processed through the job evaluation process within three months to determine if an upgrade is warranted."
On the 20th March, 2012 the Worker appealed the Rights Commissioner's Recommendation to the Labour Court in accordance with Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 22nd May, 2012.
3. 1. The Worker clearly has the responsibilities and duties of the Assistant Professor grade.
2.The Worker was given these responsibilities and duties by the Employer.
3.The Worker should, therefore, be upgraded to Assistant Professor grade.
EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1.Concession of this cost-increasing claim is precluded by the terms of the Public Service Agreement.
2.The Employer is also bound by the Financial Emergency Measures in the Public Interest (No. 2) Act, 2009.
3.Concession of the Worker's claim would require the approval of the Minister for Education & Skills with the consent of the Minister for Public Expenditure & Reform.
DECISION:
There is no dispute between the parties as to the fact that the Claimant is assigned to duties that are appropriate to a grade higher than that on which he is currently remunerated. The Rights Commissioner recommended that an evaluation of the post be undertaken but for reasons that were explained to the Court the Institute were unable to implement this recommendation.
The Institute contend that the Union’s claim is cost increasing and therefore precluded by the Public Service Agreement. The Court cannot accept that the claim can be so characterised. The Claimant is seeking no more than the rate appropriate to the work that has been assigned to him by his employer. If the Institute cannot pay the appropriate rate it cannot reasonably expect to obtain the benefit of the higher duties to which the Claimant has been assigned. The Institute confirmed to the Court that it requires the services that the Claimant is currently providing. That being the case there is no justification for not remunerating him appropriately.
The Institute accepts that the Claimant is not being appropriately remunerated having regard to the work that he performs. The only grade within the organisation above that at which the Claimant is currently remunerated in that of Assistant Professor. The submissions presented by the parties disclose an abundance of evidence to indicate that this is the appropriate grade.
In the absence of any other fair and reasonable proposal by the Institute as the how the current situation can be rectified it is the decision of the Court that the Claimant be placed on the Assistant Professor scale. This should take effect from the date of the Rights Commissioner’s recommendation.
The Rights Commissioner’s recommendation is varied in terms of this Decision.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
18th July, 2013______________________
JMcCChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Jonathan McCabe, Court Secretary.