FULL RECOMMENDATION
SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : HSE - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Hayes Employer Member: Ms Doyle Worker Member: Ms O'Donnell |
1. Appeal of Adjudication Officer Decision No. R-150485-IR-15.
BACKGROUND:
2. This matter was referred to an Adjudication Officer for investigation and Recommendation. On the 16 December 2016 the Adjudication Officer issued the following Recommendation:-
- In the absence of a nationally agreed trainer grade or indeed a job evaluation I am not in a position to recommend concession. I do however note that the redeployment scheme was not envisaged as a vehicle for undermining the rate for the job and this matter can be tested through the normal channels.
I accept that the claimant was discommoded and suffered loss initially and in that regard I recommend that she receive a payment of €3,000 net in settlement of the matter.
The Union on behalf of the Claimant appealed the Adjudication Officer’s Recommendation to the Labour Court on the 23 January 2017 in accordance with Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969.
A Labour Court hearing took place on the 24 March 2017.
UNION’S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Employee carries out a clerical function in addition to performing a role that is proper to a Grade VII Officer.
2. The Employer maintains that the option to refer a claim under the Job Evaluation Scheme is only open to those already in a clerical grade.
3. The Employer has breached its own grievance procedure.
EMPLOYER’S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Employee voluntarily entered into a dialogue to redeploy into a job she expressed an interest in and accepted redeployment.
2. The role performed by the employee carries no management or clinical responsibility.
3. The role has been half time providing training sessions and the other half Grade 3 work.
DECISION:
The Court has given careful consideration to the extensive written and oral submissions of both parties to this dispute.
The Court finds that the Claimant in this case is substantively employed on a combination of clerical and technical duties, is categorised for pay purposes as a member of the general grades while her conditions of employment combine elements of both of those categories.
The Court further finds that, as close to or in excess of 50% of her work is properly described as clerical in nature, the Claimant should be classified as a clerical employee and her terms and conditions of employment should be brought into line with that category of staff.
The Court further finds that the Claimant should be given access to the Clerical Job Evaluation scheme which should determine the grade and salary scale appropriate to the work she performs.
Finally the Court finds that the Claimant should, after the appropriate grade and pay scale has been identified through job evaluation, be assimilated to that grade and scale in accordance with normal procedures.
The Court sets aside the Adjudication Officer’s recommendation.
The Court so decides.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Brendan Hayes
LS______________________
3 April 2017Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Louise Shally, Court Secretary.