FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : DUBLIN CITY UNIVERSITY (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Ms Cryan Worker Member: Ms Tanham |
1. Reinstatement of grade & compensation.
BACKGROUND:
2. The case concerns a claim by a Worker for reinstatement to a Grade 3 position and compensation for the loss of payment accruing.
The Employer's position is that the Claimant was on a Grade 2 position when she became entitled to a contract of indefinite duration.
On the 24thJanuary, 2013 the Claimant referred her dispute to the Labour Court 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 the 26thJune 2013.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Claimant was carrying out the role and responsibilities of a Grade 2 worker when the University upgraded the post to Grade 3. She continued working in the Grade 3 position following the upgrading.
2. A Rights Commissioner ruled the Claimant had become entitled to a contract of indefinite duration. Following the Rights Commissioner’s Decision, the claimant was paid the Grade 3 rate for five months.
3. After the five months the University put the Claimant back to Grade 2 and paid her an allowance to do the duties of a Grade 3 worker.
EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Claimant is seeking the terms and conditions of employment at the time she sought her contract of indefinite duration and not those permitted when the contract of indefinite duration came into effect by operation of law.
2. The Claimant receives a salary for her Grade 2 position at NCPST. This is in line with the date she accrued four years of service and became eligible for a contract of indefinite duration.
3. The Claimant is currently receiving an allowance to carry out the duties of Grade 3. This role is subject to external funding and is not permanent work.
RECOMMENDATION:
It is clear that the Claimant in this case is being treated similarly to a number of other permanent employees who are in upgraded positions. The Court also noted that the Union accepts that any alteration in the Claimant’s current position would have industrial relations implications for others in a similar situation.
In these circumstances the Court does not believe that the Claimant’s position can be addressed on an individual basis and in isolation to that of others who are in comparable acting positions.
The Court recommends that the Union and the University management should enter into negotiations with a view to developing a common understanding on the circumstances in which employees can be appointed in an acting capacity in upgraded positions. These negotiations should also address the timeframe within which employees could remain acting without having their position regularised.
Pending the outcome of those discussion the Claimant should continue in her current arrangements.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
CR______________________
8th July, 2013Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Ciaran Roche, Court Secretary.