FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : DONEGAL COUNTY COUNCIL (REPRESENTED BY LGMA) - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION) DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Ms Cryan Worker Member: Mr McCarthy |
1. Appeal of Rights Commissioner/Adjudication Officer Recommendation R-154854-IR-15/SR
BACKGROUND:
2. This case concerns a claim for the application of the correct pay scale.
- This matter was referred to an Adjudication Officer for investigation and Recommendation. On the 6 August 2015 the Adjudication Officer issued the following Recommendation:-
- I recommend the following as a full and final settlement of the matter. I recommend that each of the claimants be placed on the appropriate point on the Assistant Engineer pay scale with effect from 1 January 2015 and the appropriate amount of back pay or arrears be paid from that date. I further recommend that as a gesture of goodwill the employer should pay each of the claimants the sum of €2,000.00, which is a compensatory lump sum payment and is not remuneration or arrears of remuneration.
The employer appealed the Adjudication Officer’s Recommendation in respect of the claimant to the Labour Court on the 9 September 2015 in accordance with Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969.
A Labour Court hearing took place on the 31 March 2016.
UNION’S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Claimant has been maintained on a Graduate Engineer pay grade over ten years. His duties includes work which is carried out by an Assistant Engineer. The employer has not disputed that the duties and responsibilities required of the employee is at least at Assistant Engineer grade.
2. Newly qualified engineers are recruited by the employer to the graduate pay grade which is a temporary grade allowing graduates to gain experience and usually after two years employees progress to the relevant Assistant Engineer pay scale.
3. The employee is wrongly maintained on a salary that is substantially lower than the agreed rate for the work he is required to carry out and in addition he is being deprived of annual increments.
EMPLOYER’S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The employer’s policy is that all posts are filled through a competitive selection process involving application, assessment and interview.
2. The employer submits that while graduates will have opportunities to progress their career there is no absolute undertaking in any graduate programme that employees will progress to a higher level automatically. The employer further submits that this claim should be the subject of an overall national claim and not an individual claim.
3. The imposition of the moratorium has created significant obligations on employees at all levels. Employees have taken on additional responsibilities within their existing roles and the moratorium has effectively restricted progression.
DECISION:
This is an appeal by the County Council on behalf of a named Claimant against a Rights Commissioner’s Recommendation.
The Union sought application of the Assistant Graduate Engineer Grade salary scale to the Claimant as he had been maintained on the Graduate Engineer Grade salary scale for eleven years and had been working at Assistant Engineer level for many years. The Rights Commissioner recommended that the Claimant should be placed on the appropriate point on the Assistant Engineer salary scale with effect from 1stJanuary 2015, he also recommended a gesture of goodwill payment of €2,000 as a compensatory lump sum.
The Union submitted that the Assistant Engineer Grade is the entry grade to the permanent Engineer pay structure and the requirement for entry to this grade is 2 years post graduate experience.
The Council appealed the Recommendation on the basis that to automatically appoint staff to a higher post is contrary to its policy and prejudicial to other staff who had applied and competed for the post of Assistant Engineer and been placed on a panel. Secondly, it submitted that the payment of a lump sum payment in compensation “as a gesture of goodwill” would create a significant precedent. Furthermore, it informed the Court that the Claimant had been appointed as Acting Assistant Engineers since 2ndJune 2015, pending the conclusion of the filling of Workplace Planning posts.
Having considered the submissions of both parties the Court upholds the Rights Commissioner’s Recommendation in part. The Court concurs with the Rights Commissioner’s finding and recommendation that the Claimant should be placed on the appropriate point on the Assistant Engineer salary scale with effect from 1stJanuary 2015, however it does not uphold the recommendation to pay him a compensatory lump sum of €2,000 as a gesture of goodwill. Accordingly, the Court upholds the Employer’s appeal in part.
The Court so Decides.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
LS______________________
14 April 2016Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Louise Shally, Court Secretary.