AD1487

On the 24th October, 2013 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 29th October 2014.


UNION'S ARGUMENTS:

3. 1. The practice of upgrading from Entry Grade 4 to Grade 3 or higher within twelve months of becoming a permanent employee dates back to 1989. The Claimants involved in this case have the same entitlement.

2. These are the second group of Workers who have experienced difficulties in having their upgrade applied under the 12 month rule.In line with LCR12678andAD139 this group of Worker should also have the Grade 3 pay rate or higher applied retrospectively.


COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:

4. 1. The sustainability of the business and protecting employment is the primary driving force behind the cost-cutting decisions of Management. The previous Court Recommendation only referred to the ten Workers who had a legitimate expectation and no others.

2. The current group of nineteen Workers cannot be encompassed by the previous Court Recommendation as they had knowledge of the new practice within the Company as they were only employed permanently after the change in practice.

DECISION:

This is an appeal by the Employer of a Rights Commissioner’s Recommendation which found in favour of the claims made by the Union on behalf of 19 named workers that they should have been placed on a higher grade once they became permanent as had been the custom and practice in the Company for many years. The Rights Commissioner in her Recommendation noted a previous case where the Court held that 10 named workers had a legitimate expectation to be upgraded once they became permanent and recommended that the 19 Claimants the subjects of this case should be treated no differently.

In its appeal to the Court the Employer submitted that the 19 Claimants, the subjects of this case, commenced employment within a year of the previous 10 Claimants and had knowledge of, or knew the practice in the plant had changed, as they were employed after the change and are therefore bound by different terms and conditions of employment.

The Union submitted that the 19 Claimants, the subjects of this case, had not reached the 12 months’ service necessary for permanency when the previous case was referred and accordingly could not have been included in that claim. It held that no agreement had been reached between the parties on changing the practice when these 19 Claimants were employed and that the practice did not change until after they had attained the 12 months’ service.

The Court notes that a new agreed arrangement has come into place since January 2013 and accepts that, while the issue was in contention since December 2010, the 19 Claimants were not formally informed on recruitment that the custom and practice had changed and accordingly the Court accepts that, while there was some level of expectation that the custom and practice remained, it is of the view that their level of expectation was somewhat different. For that reason the Court is of the view that the 19 Claimants should be compensated by the payment of €2,000.00 in three equal phases as follows: 1^stDecember 2014, 1^stMay 2015 and 1^stDecember 2015.

The Rights Commissioner’s Recommendation is varied accordingly.

The Court so Decides.



Signed on behalf of the Labour Court



Caroline Jenkinson
25th November, 2014______________________
JFDeputy Chairman



NOTE

Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to John Foley, Court Secretary.