FULL RECOMMENDATION
SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : AN BORD PLEANALA - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY IRISH MUNICIPAL, PUBLIC AND CIVIL TRADE UNION) DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Ms Doyle Worker Member: Mr McCarthy |
1. Appeal of Adjudication Officer's Decision No.ADJ-00004369
BACKGROUND:
2. The case before the Court concerns the Claimant's appeal of an Adjudication Officer's Decision. The dispute relates specifically to the Claimant's claim for incremental credit in recognition of previous service carried out prior to his commencement of employment within An Bord Pleanala in July, 2006. The Employer rejects the Claimant's claim, arguing that there is insufficient evidence to substantiate the fact that his previous role within the Department of Post and Telegraphs is relevant to his role within The Board.The matter was referred to an Adjudication Officer for investigation and recommendation. On the 8th March, 2017 the Adjudication Officer issued her Recommendation as follows:
"On the basis of the evidence and my findings above I do not recommend the Complainant be awarded incremental credit".
On the 18th April, 2017 the Union on behalf of its member appealed the Adjudication Officer's Recommendation to the Labour Court in accordance with Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 9th June, 2017.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Claimant has previous relevant service which should be recognised for incremental credit purposes.
2. The Union on behalf of its member maintains that the Employer has failed to apply the terms of Circular 21/2004 which governs the application of incremental credit.
EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Claimant has failed to provide evidence which demonstrates relevance between his previous service and his role within An Bord Pleanala.
2. The Employer is not in a position to award incremental credit when it is not clear that both roles were similar in nature.
DECISION:
This is an appeal by the Union on behalf of an employee against the Recommendation of an Adjudication Officer CA-00006415-001, ADJ-00004369 in his claim under Section 13 (9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. The Union on behalf of the Claimant sought the granting of incremental credit for his previous service with the Department of Post and Telegraphs.
The Claimant is currently employed as an Executive Officer with the Board since 2006. He claimed that his previous experience working as an Assistant Engineer/Engineer in the Department of Post and Telegraph from 1972 until 1979 should have been recognised for incremental purposes by the Board.
The Union relied upon Civil Service Conciliation and Arbitration Scheme General Council Report 1443, 28 July 2004 and upon Circular 21/2004, both outline details of an agreement on incremental credit for previous service for entry levels at Clerical Officer, Executive Officer or equivalent grades. It submitted that the Claimant’s previous service in the Department of Post and Telegraph was relevant as he was in a clerical/administrative role when he was employed as an Assistant Engineer/Engineer in that Department.
By application of Circular 21/2004 Management told the Court that it could not concede the Claimant’s claim. It held the view that the Claimant’s experience in the Department of Post and Telegraph was not relevant to the work of an Executive Officer in an Bord Pléanala.
Having considered the submissions of both parties the Court notes that no documentation or evidence was ever furnished by the Claimant to substantiate his claim that his previous experience in the Department of Post and Telegraph was relevant to the work of an Executive Officer grade. In accordance with the Circular relied upon, the onus is on a candidate when applying for such a position to provide comprehensive and accurate information to his employing department in support of his claim. While it is accepted by the Claimant that he did not do so in 2006 when applying for the position, it is also accepted by Management that it did not bring this requirement to the Claimant’s attention at the time. However, the Court notes that while this issue has been the subject of dispute between the parties since 2006, at no point has the Claimant provided such supporting documentation/information.
In all the circumstance of this case the Court concurs with the findings and recommendation of the Adjudication Officer and rejects the Union’s appeal.
Accordingly, the Adjudication Officer’s Recommendation is affirmed.
The Court so Decides.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
19th June 2017______________________
SCDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Sharon Cahill, Court Secretary.