LCR21586

The issue in dispute relates to an individual who was promoted to the position of head of Library Services – replacing the post of College Librarian at the Third level College in January 2013. The salary level for the post was inferior to the previous position of College Librarian in that College.

Complainant’s position

The Complainant’s position is that she assumed when she took up the position that she would receive the same rate of salary as her predecessor. When she became aware that she was not in receipt of that salary she raised the issue locally with management and then with her Union. It is the Union’s position that they raised this issue on the margins of discussions in relation to implementation of the Public Service Agreement. Agreement was eventually reached that an independent evaluation of the role would be carried out. This placed the complainant on a scale higher than she was on but lower than the scale she had claimed. The claimant accepted this new scale which was paid from the 1^stOctober 2016 but is seeking retrospection back to January 2013.

Respondent’s position

The position was sanctioned at a particular level to reflect the level of responsibilities of the newly designed role. The position was advertised on those terms and the complainant accepted appointment in full knowledge of the terms attaching to it. The issue was first brought to the Department’s attention when they received an email from the union which was forwarded to them by the College in February 2015. The Department would not normally be involved in a case of this nature but there were merger discussions taking place in relation to the College. The Independent evaluation issued on the 29^thSeptember 2016. The merger took place with effect from the 1^stOctober 2016 and the Department were prepared to sanction the new scale from that date as no date of implementation was agreed either before or during the job evaluation.

Discussion

This claim is taken under the Industrial Relations Act. Agreement was reached on the carrying out of an Independent evaluation of the job and both parties accepted the rate from the job that emerged from that process. However no discussion appears to have taken place in relation to the date of implementation of any finding emerging from that process. The Department’s position is that it should be the date of the merger 1^stOctober 2016 but this does not address the fact that at least at the time of the job evaluation if not before then the claimant must have been carrying out the higher duties. The Union are seeking to have the date of implementation as January 2013 despite the fact that the correspondence they sent in February 2015 acknowledges that they were only starting to pursue the issue at that point.

The Court having considered the detailed submissions of both parties and the oral submissions made on the day recommends that the Adjudicators recommendation of €5,000 euro lump sum be increased to €7,500 euro lump sum in full and final settlement of this claim.

The Adjudication Officers recommendation is so amended.

Signed on behalf of the Labour Court



Louise O'Donnell
17th October, 2017______________________
CCDeputy Chairman



NOTE

Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Ceola Cronin, Court Secretary.