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-00008821-001

16/12/2016

The complainant has been employed by the   respondent since 1996. He was initially employed as a porter and was   appointed as a Plaster Casting Technician (PCT) from 27^th of   October 2014. The dispute concerns the complainant’s assertions that the   applicable rate should have been applied from 29^th of May 2013.   The parties made written and oral submission to the hearing.

The complainant submits that he commenced work in the role   of PCT as at 29^th of May 2013 and that therefore the rate for the   job should apply from that date onwards. The date coincides with that on   which he received his professional qualification. Local attempts to resolve the issue were   undertaken in 2015 and his trade union engaged with the respondent in a   similar effort during 2016. The complainant relies on the authority of the   Labour Court to advance its rate for the job argument.

The respondent submits that the complainant was   effectively being trained for the role of PCT until such time as a post   became available. The post to which he was subsequently appointed was   advertised in May 2014. He was interviewed at the end of July 2014 and he was   informed that he was successful in his application and would be appointed to   the post on receipt of satisfactory references. The necessary paperwork was completed on   the 8^th of September 2014 and a start date of the 27^th   of October 2014 was notified by Nursing management. The contract was signed   off by the parties acknowledging that start date. A request for backdating of   the pay-scale was received in Mid-February 2016. In response the effective   start date was revised to the 8^th of September 2014 which was the   date on which the relevant documentation was received.

It is clear that the herein dispute is somewhat unusual   (not unique) in that the role is one which is normally performed by nursing   staff. The respondent does not have a SOP in place concerning assimilation   into this role and it would appear to me that assimilation was achieved on a   rather ad hoc basis in this case. The complainant submitted that others were   treated more favourably in respect of their assimilation to role. The   respondent submitted that there were collective issues arising in this case.

Having considered the submission presented I am of the   view that the appropriate resolution to this dispute is that the respondent   would pay the complainant would be paid a net sum in the amount of €250 (say   two hundred and fifty euro) as full and final settlement without precedent   having regard to the specific circumstances of the case. Additionally I would   exhort the institutions to address the issues arising here with a view to   avoiding similar disputes in the future.

I so recommend.