FULL RECOMMENDATION
SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : IARNROD EIREANN / IRISH RAIL - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Haugh Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Mr McCarthy |
1. An appeal of an Adjudication Officer's Recommendation no r-157865-ir-15/JOC.
BACKGROUND:
2. This case concerns a claimfor retrospective increments for the period March 2011 to April 2013.
- The Employer said that all employees graded as Depot Persons are required to act up as required and are paid accordingly when they carry out the work
- The Union said that the Worker was on the wrong pay scale for a period of 2 years and 6 weeks.
- This matter was referred to an Adjudication Officer for investigation and Recommendation. On the 23rd August 2016 the Adjudication Officer issued the following Recommendation:-
- I find that the dispute between the parties centres around the interpretation of a letter dated 3rd February 2010. Having examined the letter in question I find that the wording is not ambiguous but rather specific, “It has been agreed that the current personnel comprising the “Top 8 Group” will be graded as Station Operative Grade 2 going forward.” The evidence presented shows that the claimant in this instance applied for regrading after the above agreement. Therefore I would concur with the respondent’s point of view that this agreement would not be applicable to the claimant. However, I do find that it took an excessive amount of time for a decision to be made on the claimant’s regularisation into the “Top 8”, (approx.2 and a half years). I find the claimant’s natural progression through the ranks should not have been stifled by a dispute between the respondent and union particularly as an agreement on the “Top 8” had already been made in Feb 2010. I find that claimant was paid for the occasions he acted up.
Based on the evidence as submitted I cannot support the Union’s claim on behalf of the claimant.
- I find that the dispute between the parties centres around the interpretation of a letter dated 3rd February 2010. Having examined the letter in question I find that the wording is not ambiguous but rather specific, “It has been agreed that the current personnel comprising the “Top 8 Group” will be graded as Station Operative Grade 2 going forward.” The evidence presented shows that the claimant in this instance applied for regrading after the above agreement. Therefore I would concur with the respondent’s point of view that this agreement would not be applicable to the claimant. However, I do find that it took an excessive amount of time for a decision to be made on the claimant’s regularisation into the “Top 8”, (approx.2 and a half years). I find the claimant’s natural progression through the ranks should not have been stifled by a dispute between the respondent and union particularly as an agreement on the “Top 8” had already been made in Feb 2010. I find that claimant was paid for the occasions he acted up.
The Union on behalf of the Worker appealed the Adjudication Officer’s Recommendation to the Labour Court on the 6th September 2016 in accordance with Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969.
A Labour Court hearing took place on the 24th November 2016.
UNION’S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Worker was paid as a Depot Man on the S11 scale for a period of two years and six weeks. However, he should have been paid as a Senior Depot Man on the S06 scale.
2. He was paid the Acting-Up Allowance in the S11 scale and was continuously acting up for that period.
3. As a result of being on the incorrect scale, he lost out on annual incremental pay increases on the S06 scale for this period.
EMPLOYER’S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The February 2010 correspondence that the trade union is relying on clearly states that it is only the personnel in the Top 8 at that time that are covered by this arrangement.
2. As with most arrangements this letter clearly states that the regularisation, for the eight staff concerned, is on a go forward basis and is not retrospective.
3. Concession of this claim would undoubtedly lead to similar claims both current and retrospective.
DECISION:
This is the Worker’s appeal from a Recommendation of an Adjudication Officer (157865-ir-15 JOC) dated 23 August 2016. The Adjudication Officer did not uphold the Worker’s complaint at first instance. The notice of appeal was received by the Court on 6 September 2016. The Court sat to hear the appeal on 24 November 2016 in Cork. In the course of the hearing, the Court requested the Respondent to submit additional documentation. This was not received by the Court until 20 January 2017. SIPTU, on behalf of the Worker, submitted a further written submission to the Court which was received on 27 January 2017.
The dispute concerns a claim by the Worker for retrospective payment of increments. The Worker was employed as a Station Operative (S11 Grade) at Kent Station in Cork. With effect from March 2011 he acted up on a regular basis. It is accepted that he received an acting-up allowance (on the S11 Scale) in respect of all dates on which he acted up. At the material time, discussions were in train between management and the Unions in relation to acting-up arrangements at Kent Station. Following the conclusion of these discussions, in April 2013, the Worker was eventually placed on the S06 Scale. He is seeking retrospective increments for the period during which he was acting up because he was “continuously acting up” during the period March 2011 to April 2013. This was the substantive claim put to the Court - both in writing and verbally - on behalf of the Worker at the hearing on 24 November 2016.
Recommendation
The Court has carefully reviewed the copy rosters submitted by the Respondent on 20 January 2017. They incontrovertibly demonstrate that the Worker did not act up on a continuous basis throughout the period from March 2011 to April 2013, as was submitted on his behalf at the hearing of the appeal. On that basis, the Court finds that the claim is not well-founded and the appeal fails.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Alan Haugh
CR______________________
13th February, 2017Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Ciaran Roche, Court Secretary.