ADJUDICATION OFFICER RECOMMENDATION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00007752
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Anonymised Parties | A Technician | A Third Level Institution |
Representatives | SIPTU | IBEC |
Complaint(s):
Act | Complaint/Dispute Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969 | CA-00010409-001 | 24/03/2017 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 14/06/2017
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Michael Hayes
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 and/or Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Acts 1969 following the referral of the complaint(s)/dispute(s) to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaint(s)/dispute(s) and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaint(s)/dispute(s).
Background:
The respondent has employed the respondent as a senior technician since May 1999. The dispute concerns his entitlement or otherwise to inclusion in the Senior Technician’s Salary Award Scheme as approved in June 2015. The parties made written and oral submission to the hearing. The position concerning the award to a named colleague was clarified by the respondent post hearing. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The complainant submits that he was approved for inclusion in the scheme by the respondent’s high level committee on the 10th of June 2015 and as a result he commenced an approved course of study on the 22nd of August of that year. The approval was revoked on the 11th of September on the basis that the Government had abolished the scheme from the 1st of February 2012. The e-mail which informed him of the decision was written “under the misapprehension that the course had not yet commenced”. The complainant completed the course and sought payment of the allowance post successful completion without success. The matter was subject of local discussion however the respondent’s position was that the matter was not open for negotiation or compromise. It is submitted that the complainant had a legitimate expectation in respect of his inclusion in the scheme, that a colleague may have received the award post-date of abolishment and that it was open to the respondent to make an application for sanction (in accordance with the provisions of the departments letter of 16th of November 2012) in this case to the relevant Government department but that the respondent failed to do so. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The respondent submits that the complainant successfully applied for approval to undertake a course as part of its further education policy (FEP) and was accordingly approved for fee payment etc. He then applied to have the course recognised as coming within the ambit of the 10% Salary Award Scheme and was approved for the same on the 22nd of June 2015. The respondent became aware of the fact that the approval for payment of the allowance had been erroneously granted on the 7th of September 2015 and following a number of attempts to contact the complainant by phone contact was made by e-mail informing him of the error and that it was not now possible to make payment of the allowance regardless of start date of employment. The complainant outlined his disappointment and refusal to accept the respondent’s position in the matter in a replying e-mail on the 15th inst. The position of the department in the matter is affirmed in its e-mail of the 16th inst. which clearly outlines that the respondent has absolutely no discretion in the matter. |
Decision:
Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint(s)/dispute(s) in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act.
Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Acts, 1969 requires that I make a recommendation in relation to the dispute.
I am satisfied that a genuine error occurred in this case because the respondent failed to properly disseminate the instruction outlined in the letter of the 16th of November 2012 from the relevant government department. The respondent was in my opinion obliged and indeed entitled to rectify the error even at such a late stage. I note that in the case of the colleague cited that he had been approved for inclusion prior to February 2012 and that payment was made post that date. Accordingly, I am not in a position to make a recommendation favourable to the complainant in this case. |
Dated: 15th January 2017
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Michael Hayes