ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Decision Reference: ADJ-00001969
Complaint(s)/Dispute(s) for Resolution:
Act | Complaint/Dispute Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969 | CA-00000359-001 | 21/10/2015 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 12/04/2016
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41(4) of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 and the abovementioned Act, following the referral of the complaint(s)/dispute(s) to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaint(s)/dispute(s) and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaint(s)/dispute(s).
Attendance at Hearing:
Complainant’s Submission and Presentation:
Labour Court Appeal Decision AD1529 decided, inter alia, 'that any necessary consequential adjustment to the Claimant's incremental placing should be made so as to reflect the position that she would have been in had she been placed on the pre January 2011 scale on her appointment'. The parties disagree as to the 'necessary consequential adjustment'. The employer relies upon an alteration to the policy on incremental credit which the claimant was never informed of and of which the relevant trade unions were never consulted or informed. |
The complainant submits that she is entitled to the benefit of the Guidelines on Incremental Credit (old guidelines) which were applicable pre-January 2011 for her particular post. Her entitlement derives directly from the decision of the Labour Court in AD 1529 (“It follows the claimant should properly have been placed on the pre January 2011 scale with effect from the date of her appointment. It follows that any necessary consequential adjustment of the Claimant’s incremental placing should be made so as to reflect the position that she would have been in had she been placed on the pre January 2011 scale on her appointment to her current position.”), on the one hand and the contractual position at date of appointment to her current role on the other. Fundamentally the respondent is mistaken in that it has treated the complainant as a new entrant in relation to this matter. The complainant seeks a recommendation for the application of incremental credit in accordance with the scheme operated by the respondent prior to January 2011.
Respondent’s Submission and Presentation:
The respondent submits that it revised its “Guidelines on Incremental Placings” in line with Government Pay Policy and implemented the same with effect from January 2011 on the instruction of the DES. The claimant was successful in her claim before the Labour Court as it relates to her entitlement to placement on the pre-January 2011 scale in respect of her appointment in September 2013. The application of the salary scale and the guidelines are separate and distinct issues.
Decision:
In my opinion it is incorrect to assert that the salary scale and the applicable guidelines are separate and distinguishable. The pre-January 2011 scale and the old guidelines are inextricably linked as a matter of fact and it would appear that the Labour Court in AD 1529 concurs (see above).
Therefore I recommend that the claimant should receive incremental credit in accordance with the Guidelines on Incremental Placings operated by the respondent prior to January 2011 with appropriate retrospection.
Dated: 12th October 2016