FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : CAMCAS LTD (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Ms Cryan Worker Member: Ms Tanham |
1. Appeal of Rights Commissioner's Recommendation R-149222-IR-14/EOS.
BACKGROUND:
2. The case before the Court concerns the Worker's appeal of Rights Commissioner's Recommendation R-149222-IR-14/EOS. The dispute relates specifically to the Worker's claim for pay parity with craft workers employed in the Organisation. It is the Worker's contention that in his role as a General Operative he receives a lesser rate of pay whilst carrying out the duties of a craft worker. The Employer rejects the Worker's claim, arguing that he is employed as a General Operative and is remunerated appropriately. The matter was referred to a Rights Commissioner for investigation and recommendation. On the 6th May, 2015 the Rights Commissioner issued her recommendation and found against the Claimant. She further recommended as follows:
"I recommend that for the future the respondent engage with the union with a view to reaching a mutually acceptable agreement for covering promotional posts which will provide for existing staff having an opportunity to apply internally where a vacancy exists at a promotional level. I further recommend that where compelling evidence is presented to the management board in relation to the undergrading of a particular post, that the respondent agree a formula for an external and objective assessment of any such case".
On the 28th May, 2015 the Worker 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 28th July, 2015.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Worker carries out the duties associated with the role of a craft worker.
2. The Worker receives a lesser rate of pay in his position of General Operative.
3. The Worker is seeking pay parity in line with the craft workers in recognition for the duties he carries out on a daily basis.
EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Worker is employed as a General Operative and receives the correct rate of pay.
2. The Worker does not carry out the role of a craft worker.
3. The Employer is not in a position to concede the Worker's claim.
DECISION:
The Court has carefully considered the submissions of the parties to this appeal.
It is clear that neither the Claimant nor those with whom he is seeking pay parity are qualified craft workers in the formal sense in which that term is generally understood. It is however clear to the Court that the Claimant is undertaking substantially the same work as that performed by those who are classified as craft workers and any difference between the work performed by the Claimant and that performed by the other group is of little significance overall.
In these circumstances the Court can see no justification for retaining the Claimant on a lower rate than those who are performing substantially the same work.
Accordingly, it is the decision of the Court that the Union's claim be conceded with effect from the date of claim, namely 30th April, 2014.
For the avoidance of doubt the Court wishes to emphasise that the decision in this case is based on the particular circumstances of the individual Claimant on whose behalf the claim is made and the decision of the Court has no broader application. Accordingly this decision has no precedent value and should not be quoted or relied upon to advance any other claim on behalf of any other person.
The Union's appeal is allowed and the recommendation of the Rights Commissioner is substituted with this Decision.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
5th August 2015______________________
SCChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Sharon Cahill, Court Secretary.