FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : HEALTH SERVICE EXECUTIVE - AND - A WORKER DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Hayes Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Mr Shanahan |
1. Equal treatment.
BACKGROUND:
2. This dispute concerns the Worker's claim that although his colleague qualified for confirmation in her post under Circular 17/2013 it declined to upgrade him to a similar post. The Worker referred this case to the Labour Court on 5th June, 2015, in accordance with Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969, and agreed to be bound by the Court's Recommendation. A Labour Court hearing took place on 13th October, 2015.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Worker carried out the same duties as his regularised colleague.
2. The Worker had the same reporting structure as his regularised colleague.
3.The Worker believes that he was treated unfairly in comparison with his colleague.
EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Worker was in receipt of the correct pay for the role he carried out.
2. The Worker's colleague who was upgraded was in receipt of an allowance for an additional responsibility.
3. The Worker did not have any allowance or additional responsibility over and above his grade.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has given careful consideration to the submissions of both parties to this dispute. The Court notes that the HSE has extended the scope of HSE HR Circular 017/2013 to reflect the complex circumstances in which it has to be applied. This has given rise to what may appear to be inconsistencies and anomalies that would not otherwise have arisen.
In the circumstances of this case the Court finds that the Claimant interpreted that Circular letter in strict terms and concluded that he fell outside its scope. However, the HSE has agreed that his case should be examined by the Appeals Adjudicator in accordance with the terms of the Circular as extended by the HSE.
In those circumstances the Court recommends that the Claimant take the opportunity to submit the details of his claim to the Adjudicator in the context outlined above. The Claimant should thereafter come within the scope of the Circular Letter and have his case assessed and determined by the agreed Adjudicator.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Brendan Hayes
9th November, 2015______________________
JMcCDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Jonathan McCabe, Court Secretary.