FULL RECOMMENDATION
SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS IRELAND BAUSCH & LOMB - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Haugh Employer Member: Mr Marie Worker Member: Ms Tanham |
1. Appeal Of Adjudication Officer Decision No: ADJ-00008439 CA-00011432-001.
BACKGROUND:
2. This dispute concerns the Worker's claim that he carried out the role of stand in manager in the Bio True Injection Moulding Machine area from 2012-2016 and he should have been paid the 25% premium attached to that role. This dispute was referred to an Adjudication Officer for investigation and recommendation. On the 3rd October 2017, the Adjudication Officer issued the following Recommendation:-
"Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Acts, 1969 requires that I make a recommendation in relation to the dispute. For the reasons set out above I do not uphold complaint CA-00011432-001 and it is dismissed"
On the 13 November, 2017, the Employee appealed the Adjudication Officer's Recommendation to the Labour Court in accordance with Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on 13th February 2018.
The following is the Recommendation of the Court:
DECISION:
Background to the Dispute
The Worker acted up in a Stand-in-Manager position for a number of months in 2010 and again in 2011. On both occasions he received a 25% allowance for the duration of the acting-up period.
A vacancy for a Stand-In-Manager position became available in early 2012. It was initially filled by a colleague of the Worker’s without having first been advertised internally, as is required under the terms of a Company-Union agreement. The Worker raised a grievance in relation to the manner in which the position had been filled. The position was subsequently advertised and the Worker unsuccessfully applied for it. The colleague who had been performing the role since early 2012 was the successful candidate.
That colleague was promoted to the position of Manager in March 2015. The position he vacated at that time was again filled by the Company without having been advertised.
The Worker submits that the colleagues appointed to the Stand-In-Manager position in 2012 and 2015 respectively were not fully trained to carry out many of the functions associated with the position and he, therefore, was tasked with fulfilling those functions such that he was effectively acting up in the role from early 2012 until he ceased to do so sometime in March or April 2015. His claim is that he should have been paid the 25% acting up allowance for that period. He submits that he raised the matter of the allowance informally with a number of managers over the period in question but did not escalate it to a formal grievance because he did not want to ‘rock the boat’ and undermine his future prospects for promotion with the Company.
The Company submits that the Worker is now seeking retrospectively to revisit a historical issue in respect of which he did not raise a formal grievance at the relevant time and that the majority of the people he claims he spoke informally to about the issue are no longer with the Company. The Company told the Court that there is a formal process in place whereby a person who is acting up can claim an acting-up allowance. The process requires the person to complete a form which is then approved by his/her manager and HR and then forwarded to payroll. The Worker did not utilise the procedure between 2012 and 2015 although he was clearly familiar with it, having used it to claim an allowance in 2010 and 2011. The Company submits that the Worker may have being doing elements of the role during the period to which the dispute relates but does not accept that he was acting up in that period. Had the Worker initiated the process to claim the allowance, the matter could have been resolved using the grievance procedure at the time.
Recommendation
Having considered the Parties’ written and verbal submissions, the Court finds that the Worker’s claim is not well-founded and, therefore, upholds the Adjudication Officer’s recommendation.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
JD______________________
23 February 2018Alan Haugh
Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to John Deegan, Court Secretary.