FULL RECOMMENDATION
SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : HEALTH SERVICE EXECUTIVE - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION) DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Marie Worker Member: Ms Tanham |
1. Appeal of Adjudication Officer's Decision No: ADJ-00006576.
BACKGROUND:
2. This case concerns a claim by the Claimant that he should have been paid a rate appropriate to a Casting Technician from 29 May 2013.
The matter was referred to an Adjudication Officer for investigation and recommendation. On 3 May 2017 the Adjudication Officer issued the following recommendation:-
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 to avoiding similar disputes in the future.
I so recommend.
The Union on behalf of the Claimant appealed the Adjudication Officer's Recommendation to the Labour Court on 18 May 2017 in accordance with Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969.
A Labour Court hearing took place on 20 September 2017.
DECISION:
This is an appeal by the Claimant against the Decision of an Adjudication Officer in a claim made against his employer that he should have been paid a rate appropriate to a Casting Technician from 29th May 2013. Instead the Claimant was paid that rate from 8th September 2014. The Adjudication Officer held that the problem arose due to an assimilation issue. He recommended that the Claimant should be paid the sum of €250.00 in full and final settlement of his claim. The employer did not appeal the Recommendation.
The Claimant claimed that he commenced work in this position on 29th May 2013, having previously been assigned work as a trainee technician from 17thOctober 2011 and having acquired the British Casting Association Certification qualification on 29th May 2013. However, he was not paid the appropriate rate for the job until 8th September 2014. He sought retrospection for the period 29th May 2013 until8th September 2014.
Management stated that the Claimant was awarded his qualification in October 2013 following which a post was approved for him under the Employment Control Framework in March 2014. However it was 8th September 2014 before all the paperwork was completed for the post. His start date was confirmed and sanctioned as 27th October 2014. In order to address the claim, management agreed to make payment for the role retrospective to 8th September 2014.
Having considered the submission of both parties, the Court notes that the Claimant was in a training role as a Casting Technician since October 2011. It is satisfied that the date he completed the course and received his Casting Technician Certificate was 1st October 2013. However, it was October 2014 before his position was formally recognised. In the meantime he was carrying out the role. The Court is of the view that no satisfactory reason was submitted for the delay in seeking approval under the Employment Control Framework. Such a delay was unreasonable when there was a necessity for the post as far back as at least October 2013. Given the unique circumstances of this case the Court recommends that the Claimant should be paid the appropriate rate for the role retrospective to 1st October 2013 reflecting the appropriate point on the scale as if he had been formally appointed on that date.
Accordingly, the Court overturns the Adjudication Officer’s Recommendation and the appeal succeeds in part.
The Court so Decides.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
27 September 2017______________________
MNDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Michael Neville, Court Secretary.