ADJ-00005178

ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION/RECOMMENDATION

Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00005178

Parties:

Complaint(s):

 Date of Adjudication Hearing: 05/01/2017

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Michael Hayes

Procedure:

In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 and Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Acts 1969, 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).

Background:

Summary of Complainant’s Case:

The complainant submits that has pursued the herein complaint since as far back as 1996. He was partially successful over the years in that he was awarded an additional allowance in 2001 and the claim was favourably viewed by a Right’s Commissioner in 2005 whose recommendation stated that the matter should be addressed through the appropriate national channels and that an interim award of €3,000 be paid in anticipation of the fact that such an initiative would necessarily take a long period of time to conclude. In the event it was not possible to conclude as a result of the economic downturn and the attendant FEMPI legislation albeit that the matter had the attention of the Labour Court in the interim. The Court held that insofar as the claim was a cost increasing one that it was precluded under the PSA. It is accepted that the complainant was regularised to the position of charge-hand in accordance with C17/2013 however a local agreement to settle the matter (payment of tool allowance) was rejected by national management. He submits that colleagues are graded at craft foreman grade. He petitions for that grade together with tool allowance, all associated benefits and appropriate retrospection.

Summary of Respondent’s Case:

The respondent submits it paid the lump sum element of the recommendation of the Right’s Commissioner in January 2006 and that the trade union failed to pursue the matter through national channels in accordance with the same recommendation until 2008 (some three years later). The claimant has always been paid the appropriate rate within the constraints which have been placed on the respondent. He has received allowances for additional responsibilities which equate to the charge-hand rate and scale and has been regularised in that grade under circular 17/2013. His claim for concession of the foreman grade (resulting from the earlier Right’s Commissioner Recommendation) was the subject of a binding decision of the Labour Court and there is no substantive change in the situation. It is accepted that a senior manager offered the payment of a tool allowance in an effort to resolve the matter and the offer was accepted by the complainant, however the offer was made in error and can’t be applied as it was ceased for new recipients in 2012.

Decision:

Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Acts, 1969 requires that I make a recommendation in relation to the dispute.

It is rather unfortunate that the institutions having accepted the recommendation of my colleague in 2005 failed to address the matter in a timely manner as it was in the interest of all the parties to so do.

Noting that recommendation and deferring to its inherent logic I similarly recommend that the matter become the subject of referral through the appropriate national channels as a matter of urgency. Furthermore a further €3,000 should be paid to the complainant in recognition of the unique characteristics of the case and the fact that he will be bound by the outcome of the process. This recommendation may not be cited by either party as precedent in any other case whatsoever.

Dated:   19 June 2017

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Michael Hayes