FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : HSE SOUTH - AND - INMO DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Ms Doyle Worker Member: Ms Tanham |
1. Application of Incremental Credit.
BACKGROUND:
2. The case before the Court concerns a dispute between the Employer and the Union on behalf of one of its members in relation to the application of incremental credit. It is the Union's claim that the Worker is entitled to the retrospective application of incremental credit for a period of time spent in an acting-up position. The Employer refutes the Union's claim, arguing that the Worker has been remunerated appropriately at all times. The dispute could not be resolved at local level and was the subject of a Conciliation Conference under the auspices of the Labour Relations Commission. As agreement was not reached, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 1st December, 2014, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 2nd April, 2015.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Union on behalf of its member is seeking incremental credit progression under a local agreement from 2009-2014.
2. The Union asserts that the Worker has been treated in an inequitable manner by the Employer following its refusal to grant her incremental credit on a higher pay scale.
EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Employer contends that the Worker has received the appropriate amount of incremental credit in accordance with the role she is currently carrying out.
2. The Employer contends that this is a cost increasing claim and is therefore precluded under the terms of the Public Service Agreement 2010-2014.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court is satisfied on the information before it that the Claimant is appropriately graded as a RGN / RM. It is noted that the Claimant is paid on the first point of the PHN scale on a personal to holder basis and that this arrangement is one of long standing. Nothing in this Recommendation is intended to interfere with that arrangement.
For these reasons the Court does not recommend concession of the Union’s claim.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
27th April 2015______________________
SCChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Sharon Cahill, Court Secretary.