FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : IRISH BLOOD TRANSFUSION SERVICE (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY MLSA) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Ms Doyle Worker Member: Ms Tanham |
1. Appeal of a Rights Commissioner’s Recommendation r-107830-ir-11/JOC.
BACKGROUND:
2. This Claimant began her employment as a Medical Laboratory Technician with the Company in 1999. In 2007 the Claimant progressed to the position of Senior Quality Scientist and has been remunerated at the fifth point on the Senior Medical Scientist pay-scale since.
The Company said the Claimant was not moved to the sixth point of the scale because she did not hold any of the prescribed qualifications required to move beyond the bar-point.
- This matter was referred to a Rights Commissioner for investigation and recommendation. On the 11th April 2012 the Rights Commissioner issued the following Recommendation:-
- “The issues surrounding the advancement of the claimant to higher pay scale are purely that of relevant qualifications. I have taken into consideration the comparator put forward and find for similar reasons as outlined in the respondent’s submission that the comparator in this case is unsuitable as such. The prescribed qualifications required for a specific position have already been established by national agreement and it is beyond the ambit of my jurisdiction to decide the relevance of different qualifications in relation to a job title as opposed to those qualifications prescribed to that job title. In allowing the claimant to move beyond her bar-point I find I would have to disregard a national agreement which has already dealt with this matter and as such I cannot support the claimant’s position and I uphold the Respondent’s position.”.
On the 24th April 2012 the Employee 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 24th April 2013.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. It is both unfair and unreasonable to apply the pay-bar to the Claimant given no such pay-bar is applied to comparator colleagues in IBTS who are remunerated on the same Senior Medical Scientist pay-scale but to whom no pay bar applied.
2. The person who job-shares with the Claimant is not a Medical Scientist, highlighting that a Medical Science qualification is not required to undertake her role.
3. The advertisement for the position of Senior Quality Scientist stated that it is an advantage to be a Medical Scientist – but not a perquisite.
EMPLOYER’S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. In 2001, the Report of an Expert Group on Medical Laboratory Scientist was published. The Expert Group made a number of recommendations in its report, which was accepted by all parties including the Claimant’s Union.
2. Eligibility for the full application of this Senior Medical Scientist scale would require Medical Scientists to possess the qualifications laid down for the Technologist posts.
3. If the Claimant were entitled to progress to the next point of the scale, the organisation would have received a letter from the Academy of Medical Science to state the relevant qualification has been attained and certifying her progression on the pay scale.
DECISION:
It is accepted that the Claimant’s terms and conditions of employment, including pay, are determined by a collective agreement. The agreement prescribes that progression on the pay scale applicable to the Claimant, beyond the 5thpoint, is conditional on attaining particular qualification which the Claimant does not possess. The agreement does not provide for any exceptions to the pay bar and no such exception can be imported into the agreement by the Court.
In these circumstances the Court cannot support the Union’s claim. Accordingly the appeal is disallowed and the recommendation of the Rights Commissioner is affirmed.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
CR______________________
1st May, 2013.Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Ciaran Roche, Court Secretary.