FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : LOUTH COUNTY COUNCIL (REPRESENTED BY LOCAL GOVERNMENT MANAGEMENT AGENCY) - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY PC MOORE & CO SOLICITORS) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Hayes Employer Member: Ms Cryan Worker Member: Mr Shanahan |
1. Reinstatement / contract of indefinite duration.
BACKGROUND:
2. This dispute concerns the Worker's claim for reinstatement / contract of indefinite duration. The Worker referred this case to the Labour Court on 8th July, 2013, 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 18th October, 2013.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Worker was unjustly demoted.
2. The Worker has suffered a significant loss of income.
3.The Worker has suffered a loss of status and position.
EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Worker never ceased to be a permanent employee at his substantive grade.
2. The Worker filled a higher grade post in an acting capacity.
- 3. A permanent substantive post can only be filled through a competition.
RECOMMENDATION:
Having considered the submissions of each of the parties the Court finds that the re-grading of staff in Local Authorities is regulated by legal, public policy and collective agreement constraints. In this case the Claimant seeks to be re-graded on a personal basis outside of those constraints.
The Court is aware that there is a significant number of Local Authority employees that find themselves in the same position as the Claimant and who would seek comparable preferential treatment were the Court to recommend concession of this claim. The Court is also aware that there are discussions underway, under the auspices of the Haddington Road Agreement, to regularise the status of staff in long term acting positions.
Taking all of these factors into account, the Court recommends that the Claimant’s case be considered in the context of whatever agreement emerges from those talks and accordingly does not recommend concession of the Worker’s claim in isolation as sought in this case.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Brendan Hayes
5th November, 2013______________________
JMcCDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Jonathan McCabe, Court Secretary.