FULL RECOMMENDATION
SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : BEAUMONT HOSPITAL (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - A WORKER DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Hayes Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Mr Shanahan |
1. Incremental Credit
BACKGROUND:
2. On the 16th March 2017 the Worker referred the dispute to the Labour Court in accordance with Section 20 (1) of the Industrial Relations Act. 1969 and agreed to be bound by the Court's recommendation.
A Labour Court hearing took place on the 20th of April 2017.
WORKERS ARGUMENTS:
The Worker argued that her contract of employment entitled her to incremental credit for previous experience. The Worker stated that she requested clarification as to why she had not received incremental credit on several occasions throughout 2016 and had received no reply from the Employer.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
The Employer stated that the Worker was not entitled to any recognition of incremental credit for previous experience and that the Contract signed by the Worker should not have contained any reference to same. Furthermore, the Employer stated that starting increments for Workers in the relevant category had been regularised by national agreement. As such, the Company argued that the Court should consider the clause regarding incremental credit in the Workers contract to be void.
RECOMMENDATION:
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 was issued with a contract of employment in the context of a National Agreement concluded between the Public Service Unions and their employers. The contract at issue in this case went beyond the terms of that Agreement in that it made provision for additional increments based on prior relevant service with another employer.
The Claimant seeks to rely on the strict terms of the Contract. She asks the Court to find that she is entitled to have the terms of the contract applied as written. .
The Respondent submits that the Claimant’s employment and contract must be viewed in the context that the impugned provision is an error that it had no authority to offer the Claimant and that the issue of incremental credit is the subject of national talks that may or may not resolve the issue at hand for all staff affected or potentially affected. It submits those talks is the appropriate forum in which to address the issue of incremental credit.
The Court finds that Management has dealt with this matter in a most unsatisfactory manner. However it nevertheless takes the view that the Claimant’s contract of employment must be viewed in the context of the National Agreement which was intended to apply to it. In those circumstances the Court finds that the impugned clause the Claimant seeks to rely upon is a genuine error that should not be strictly enforced.
The Court further notes that the planned national talks may finally decide the extent to which incremental credit should apply to Health Care Assistants offered CIDs under the terms of the National Agreement. If those talks provide for assimilation to the scale and incremental credit of the type claimed by and in the particular circumstances of the Claimant then the terms of settlement agreed should apply to her to the extent set out in the terms of that settlement.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Brendan Hayes
JD______________________
9 May 2017Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to John Deegan, Court Secretary.