FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : HSE - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Ms Doyle Worker Member: Ms Tanham |
1. Appeal of Rights Commissioner's Recommendation R-114552-IR-11/JT.
BACKGROUND:
2. The case before the Court concerns the Worker's appeal ofRights Commissioner's Recommendation R-114552-IR-11/JT. The dispute relates specifically to the Worker's claim for permanent regrading to a post in which he was previously appointed to in a temporary capacity. The Employer rejects the Worker's claim arguing that it is not in a position to permanently appoint the Worker to the post he was temporarily appointed to.The matter was referred to a Rights Commissioner for investigation and recommendation. On the 8th May, 2012, the Rights Commissioner issued his Recommendation as follows:
"I have considered the submissions of both parties. The fact is that the Claimant accepted a permanent job as a Stores Assistant. In doing so he accepted the duties that go with that role. The Respondent's are within their rights to expect the Claimant to carry out these functions as designed for the role of Stores Assistant.
I do not find the Claimant's claim well founded and it fails".
On the 30th May, 2012 the Worker appealed the Rights Commissioners 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 13th February, 2013.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Worker continues to carry out the duties associated with the post he is seeking permanent appointment to.
2. The Worker contends that he was not in an acting-up position and received no acting-up allowance when he previously carried out the currently sought permanent post.
EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Worker previously carried out the higher grade post on a specific purpose contract and reverted to his currently-held post when that contract expired.
2. The Worker was afforded the opportunity to apply for the permanent post however his application was not received within the specified time frame.
3. The Employer is bound by the terms of the Public Service Agreement 2010-2014 and is not in a position to concede the Worker's cost-increasing claim.
DECISION:
The Court had carefully considered the submissions of the parties to this appeal. Having done so the Court can see no reasonable basis upon which it could interfere with the conclusions and recommendation of the Rights Commissioner.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
6th March 2013______________________
SCChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Sharon Cahill, Court Secretary.