FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : WATERFORD CITY COUNCIL - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY SEÁN ORMONDE & CO. SOLICITORS) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Ms Doyle Worker Member: Ms Tanham |
1. Appeal of Rights Commissioner's Recommendation R-108721-IR-11/MMG.
BACKGROUND:
2. The case before the Court concerns the Employer's appeal ofRights Commissioner's Recommendation R-108721-IR-11/MMG. The dispute relates specifically to the Worker's claim for implementation of a circular which determines the relevant payscale applicable to her. The Employer rejects the Worker's claim arguing that she does not meet the qualifying criteria and as a result the circular does not apply to her. The matter was referred to a Rights Commissioner for investigation and recommendation. On the 25th June, 2012 the Rights Commissioner issued his Recommendation as follows:
"Whilst I cannot make a decision on behalf of the Department or the Council per se, I am of the opinion that the Claimant has presented a reasoned and valid argument.
It is my recommendation that the review is processed, with the Council's support, through the LGMSB and/or the Department to achieve the correct position of the post and consequent salary status".
On the 27th July 2012, the Employer 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 14th February, 2013.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Worker contends that she is currently receiving the incorrect rate of pay as a result of the Employer's refusal to apply the circular to her.
2. The Worker is seeking a review of her current salary status in line with the circular issued by her Employer.
EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Employer contends that it has fully met the requirements of the circular and furthermore contends that the Worker is receiving the correct rate of pay in line with her contracted duties.
2.The Employer asserts that an imminent amalgamation will clarify the Worker's position and as a result a payscale review is not required at this time.
DECISION:
The Court can see no justifiable basis as to why the Claimant has not been remunerated at the rate applicable to a Senior Executive Engineer since 2010 when that rate was established as the appropriate rate.
It is noted that the Claimant is merely seeking to have the recommendation of the Rights Commissioner upheld. There is no basis upon which the Court could do otherwise.
The Council’s appeal is disallowed and the recommendation of the Rights Commissioner is affirmed.
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.