FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : IRISH BLOOD TRANSFUSION SERVICE (IBTS) (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION) DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Ms Doyle Worker Member: Mr Shanahan |
1. Appeal of Rights Commissioner's Recommendation R-146132-IR-14.
BACKGROUND:
2. The case before the Court concerns the Worker's appeal ofRights Commissioner's Recommendation R-146132-IR-14.The dispute relates specifically to the Worker's claim that she should have maintained her salary scale when she took up a new position. It is the Worker's contention that as part of organisational restructuring she was redeployed into the new position and her terms and conditions of employment and salary scale should have transferred accordingly. The Employer rejects the Worker's position arguing that the Worker was not redeployed and took up the position as anew entrant into it. The matter was referred to a Rights Commissioner for investigation and recommendation. On the 5th March 2015, the Rights Commissioner issued his Recommendation as follows:
"I have considered the submissions of both parties. In doing so I uphold the Respondent's position as the claim is without basis. The claim fails".
On the 1st April, 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 5th August, 2015.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Worker contends that the option to redeploy was applicable to her at the time she took up her new position.
2. The Worker maintains that her existing terms and conditions of employment should have transferred with her into her new position.
3. The Worker is of the view that she was incorrectly classified as a new entrant and the salary-reducing circular issued by the HSE was applied to her in error.
EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. It is the Employer's position that the Worker was not redeployed into the new position.
2. The Employer asserts that the Worker applied for the new position and was aware of the corresponding salary scale at the time she took up the role.
3. The Employer contends that the Worker was assured that she held a specific purpose contract in the new position and was free to return to her previous position if and when she chose to do so.
DECISION:
This is an appeal by the Union on behalf of an employee against a Rights Commissioner’s Recommendation which found against her claim that she held an indefinite right to redeployment on her substantive terms and conditions of employment and that she was not subject to Department of Health & Children Circular 2/2011 “Application of 10% reduction in pay rates to entry grades to the Health Sector”.
The Union stated that the Claimant was entitled to indefinite redeployment options in accordance with an agreement reached between IBTS and the Union dated 12thOctober 2010 concerning employees based at D’Olier Street.
This agreement provided for new rostering arrangements, with certain modifications in “hardship” cases. For those employees who could not work the new rosters for legitimate reasons, there was the alternative of redeployment or redundancy.
The Court notes that the Claimant opted to avail of the new rostering arrangements with certain agreed modifications designed to deal with her own personal circumstances. She was not redeployed and was repeatedly informed by management that it could not agree to her request for the option of redeployment to be left open to her. She remained in D’Olier Street on modified rostering arrangements for a period of three years. In 2013 she applied through an internal completion for a vacancy as a Laboratory Assistant, was successful and was placed in such a post on 14thOctober 2013, on the advertised rate for the position. This is a temporary position and the Court notes that management have confirmed that her substantive role is and remains Donor Attendant (Clerical Grade 3 + 13%) and that she is free to return to that role.
Having considered all aspects of this appeal the Court is satisfied that the Claimant was treated in the same manner as all other employees covered by the October 2010 Agreement, whereby she was given the opportunity to avail of three options, she chose to work the new roster (with modifications to suit her personal circumstances) and is satisfied that the other options (redeployment or redundancy) were therefore no longer available to her.
The Court has been informed that the Department of Health & Children Circular 2/2011 which applied to the position the Claimant accepted in October 2013, has been subsequently rescinded.
Therefore, the Court upholds the Rights Commissioner’s Recommendation and rejects the appeal.
The Court so Decides.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
19th August 2015______________________
SCDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Sharon Cahill, Court Secretary.