FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : KILKENNY COUNTY COUNCIL (REPRESENTED BY LGMA) - AND - SHANE AYLWARD (REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION) DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Ms Doyle Worker Member: Mr McCarthy |
1. Appeal against a Rights Commissioner's Recommendation R-136563-IR-13/JT
BACKGROUND:
2. This is a joint appeal against the decision of a Rights Commissioner in a claim by Mr. Shane Aylward against his employer, Kilkenny County Council. The Claimant sought to be graded as an Executive Engineer as he considered that he was incorrectly graded as an Assistant Engineer and indicated that the duties assigned to him far exceeded the duties intended for an Assistant Engineer.The Employer rejected the claim stating that the Claimant was on the appropriate grade.
This matter was referred to a Rights Commissioner for investigation and Recommendation. On the 22nd September, 2014 the Rights Commissioner issued the following Recommendation:-
- I have considered the submissions of both parties. It is clear from these submissions that parts of the Claimant's role have diminish[ed]and other areas expanded due to declining staff and resource where innovation is required. Purely based on Labour Court Decision CD/11/668 I recommend that the parties appoint/agree an expert to assess this claim on the ground in this case.
On the 6th October, 2014 the Claimant 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 3rd March 2015.
WORKER’S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Worker has worked as an Assistant Engineer with Kilkenny County Council from 2007 and has indicated that the duties assigned to him far exceed the duties intended for an Assistant Engineer.
2. The report of the Public Service Benchmarking Body in 2002 characterised in part the level of responsibility expected in the post of Assistant Engineer. The description given bears no comparison to the intricacies and level of supervisory duties which the Worker has been required to carry out on a day to day basis.
3. Historically the post has been paid at Executive Engineer level and this claim is not a cost increasing claim but a claim for the appropriate rate for the job.
EMPLOYER’S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Employer is satisfied that the claim is for a regrading exercise and falls outside the terms of current national agreements and the grade of Assistant Engineer is appropriate for the post of Machinery Yard Engineer.
2. No member of staff is entitled to an automatic right to be regraded or to seek regrading.
3. The Worker was appointed to the post of Assistant Engineer in the Machinery Yard in 2007. He did not raise the issue of his grade/pay until February 2012 which was 4.5 years after his assignment to the Machinery Yard.
DECISION:
This is a joint appeal against the decision of a Rights Commissioner in a claim by Mr. Shane Aylward against his employer, Kilkenny County Council. The Claimant sought to be graded as an Executive Engineer as he considered that he was incorrectly graded as an Assistant Engineer. He submitted that prior to his appointment to the grade in 2007, the job had been graded at Executive Engineer level.
The Right Commissioner recommended the appointment of an expert to assess the claim on the ground.
The Employer rejected the claim stating that the Claimant was on the appropriate grade and rejected the Rights Commissioner’s Recommendation holding that it was not practical. The Employer stated that the Claimant was appointed to the role of Assistant Engineer in the Machinery Yard in 2007, since that time the Machinery Yard has operated with increasingly reduced resources due to the economic situation and reduced budgets for roadworks.
The Union on behalf of the Claimant rejected the Rights Commissioner’s Recommendation and sought application of the Executive Engineer pay scale with retrospective effect to 30thJuly 2007. It contended that the duties assigned to the Claimant far exceeded the duties intended for an Assistant Engineer and were more appropriate to that of Executive Engineer grade.
Having considered the submissions of both sides the Court concurs with the findings of the Rights Commissioner and accordingly upholds his Recommendation that a person with expertise in job analysis should be commissioned to carry out an evaluation of the two roles to determine whether or not the Claimant is correctly graded.
Accordingly, the Court upholds the Rights Commissioner’s Recommendation and rejects both appeals.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
CO'R______________________
26th March 2015Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Clodagh O'Reilly, Court Secretary.