FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : SOUTH DUBLIN COUNTY COUNCIL - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Hayes Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Mr Shanahan |
1. An appeal of a Rights Commissioner's Recommendation r-142048-ir-12/JT.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Claimant is seeking compensation for extra duties which he claims were undertaken by him over and above the normal duties of his role.
- The Employer said the Claimant was not a qualified Painter and was on a training scheme while carrying out the duties and thus cannot be compensated at a Painter’s rate of pay.
- This matter was referred to a Rights Commissioner for investigation and Recommendation. On the 5thSeptember 2014 the Rights Commissioner issued the following Recommendation:-
- I have considered the submissions of both parties. I am well aware of the demarcation within the craft sector in the Respondent’s Council. They would be the first to object if the Claimant was awarded a craft rate. The Group of Unions were unfair in encouraging the Claimant to make a claim based on the craft rate for a painter.
In considering the claim I note that the Claimant was promoted to the post of General Operative with an increase in his rate of pay. I accept that this is an acknowledgement of the work he was carrying out. I do not find the claim well found.
- I have considered the submissions of both parties. I am well aware of the demarcation within the craft sector in the Respondent’s Council. They would be the first to object if the Claimant was awarded a craft rate. The Group of Unions were unfair in encouraging the Claimant to make a claim based on the craft rate for a painter.
A Labour Court hearing took place on the 19th November 2014.
WORKER’S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Group of Unions had no involvement in his case other than to advise his Union that they had no issue with him receiving some form of monetary compensation for undertaking the painting duties that were assigned to him.
2. The Claimant did not make a claim looking for a Craft rate of pay.
3. The Claimant is entitled to monetary compensation for the significant amount of painting work undertaken by him which effectively saved the Council having to engage a qualified Craftsperson.
EMPLOYER’S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Claimant took up duties with the Council in June 2007 on a Training Programme. The original intention was that participants would be employed on a rolling-basis and would be part of a Training Programme.
2. Throughout the Programme, the Claimant was under the supervision of an Assistant Foreman of Works who is a qualified Painter.
3. The Programme by its nature was primarily an outdoor-based activity and due to inclement weather conditions other indoor work was allocated to the participants.
DECISION:
Having carefully considered the submissions of both parties in this case the Court finds some merit in the Claimant’s case and accordingly decides that he is entitled to a measure of compensation for the higher duties he performed while working on the “Graffiti Scheme”. The Court measures the level of compensation at €5,000.
The Rights Commissioner’s Recommendation is accordingly set aside. The Court so decides.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Brendan Hayes
CR______________________
10th December, 2014.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Ciaran Roche, Court Secretary.