FULL RECOMMENDATION
SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : FINGAL COUNTY COUNCIL - AND - A WORKER DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Ms Connolly Worker Member: Mr Hall |
1. Appeal of Adjudication Officer's Recommendation No: ADJ-00012622.
BACKGROUND:
2. This case concerns a claim by the worker that he receive remuneration for performing duties at a grade above his substantive grade.
The matter was referred to an Adjudication Officer for investigation and recommendation. On 17 August 2018 the Adjudication Officer issued the following recommendation:-
I find it very difficult to disagree with the arguments presented by the Respondent and it is for these reasons I find the complaint is not well found and therefore fails.
The Workerappealed the Adjudication Officer's Recommendation to the Labour Court on 26 September 2018in accordance with Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on 29 November 2018. The following is the Decision of the Court:-
DECISION:
This is an appeal by an employee against the Recommendation of an Adjudication Officer Adj-00012622 in a claim against his employer under the Industrial Relations Act, 1969.
The Claimant is graded as a Senior Staff Officer Grade 6. He claimed that he was entitled to be paid at Grade 7 for the period from 18thAugust 2011 until 15thFebruary 2016, as he contended that during that period he carried out the functions of the retired Administrative Officer Grade 7.
The Claimant was at the material time working in the Internal Audit Section of the Council. When the Administrative Officer retired on 18thAugust 2011, he claimed that he was expected to and did take over these duties and responsibilities and accordingly sought payment for the additional Grade 7 duties performed.
Management disputed this claim, stating that the Claimant was never requested to carry out the workload or take on the responsibilities arising from the vacancy at Grade 7. He stated that the Council was prohibited from filling the role due to the government embargo on recruitment and promotion, which resulted in over 400 vacancies in the Council not filled at the time. Approval for the filling of such vacancies could only arise where statutory or regulatory requirements necessitated the filling of a post.
Having considered the oral and written submission of both parties, the Court is of the view that the imposition of the moratorium on recruitment and promotion had the effect of preventing the Council from replacing the retired Grade 7, as it was not a post which required to be filled by regulation or statute.
While it is clear that the Claimant carried out extra duties following the retirement of the Grade 7 post holder, it is equally clear that he was not accountable for such work, that responsibility rested with the Senior Executive Officer Grade 8. The Court is satisfied that authorisation/approval had not been given to amend the Claimant’s post to a Grade 7 post and in such circumstances the Court cannot recommend that he should have been paid at the higher grade for the period in question.
Therefore, the Court rejects the Claimant’s appeal and uphold the Recommendation of the Adjudication Officer.
The Court so Decides.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
5 December 2018______________________
MNDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Michael Neville, Court Secretary.