FULL RECOMMENDATION
SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : HEALTH SERVICE EXECUTIVE / SAOLTA GROUP - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Hayes Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Ms Treacy |
1. Appeal of Adjudication Officer Decision No. ADJ-00005178.
BACKGROUND:
2. This matter was referred to an Adjudication Officer for investigation and Recommendation. On the 19 June 2017 the Adjudication Officer issued the following Recommendation:-
- “I 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”.
The Employer appealed the Adjudication Officer’s Recommendation to the Labour Court on the 26 July 2017 in accordance with Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 1stNovember 2017.
UNION ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Union submit that Management have never disputed that the Worker is carrying out the work of a craft foreman.
2. The Union contend that the craft rate applies in some instances to other workers carrying out similar work.
EMPLOYER’S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. Management contend that they are bound by national pay scales and allowances and FEMPI legislation.
2. Management submit that the Worker is paid on the appropriate scale of Head Gardener and paid allowances for additional responsibilities which equate to the Chargehand pay scale.
DECISION:
The Court has given careful consideration to the extensive submissions of both parties to this dispute.
The Court finds that the HSE regularised the claimant into the Craft Chargehand Grade with effect from the relevant operative date in October 2013. Accordingly the court finds that the Claimant, in line with other staff appointed at that time, is entitled to benefit from all of the terms and conditions associated with that grade, including the on-call allowance, with effect from that date.
The Court further finds that the Claimant is entitled to be paid the appropriate rate for the job he is performing. The Court notes that the Claimant argues that he is performing the work of a Craft Foreman and should be paid accordingly. The Respondent maintains that the Claimant is performing the work of a Craft Chargehand and is being paid the appropriate rate of pay accordingly.
To resolve this difference the Court finds that the work of the Claimant should be assessed against the Craft Foreman Job Description and a fully reasoned determination made on the merits of this claim. Should the parties disagree on the outcome of that determination the matter should be referred to an independent arbitrator to decide the matter.
The Court makes this decision on the basis that a claim to be paid the established rate for the job is, by definition, not a cost-increasing claim.
Finally the Court upholds the award of compensation in the sum of €3000 made by the Adjudication Officer in this case.
The Court so decides
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Brendan Hayes
LS______________________
27 November 2017Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Louise Shally, Court Secretary.