ADJUDICATION OFFICER RECOMMENDATION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00013770
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Anonymised Parties | A Public Servant | A Local Government Authority |
Representatives | Fórsa. |
|
Complaint:
Act | Dispute Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969 | CA-00018117-001 | 23/03/2018 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 27/07/2018
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Pat Brady
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Acts 1969following the referral of the dispute to me by the Director General, I inquired into the dispute and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the dispute.
Background:
In 2012 the complainant was asked to ‘act up’ in a grade three grades above that at to which he was appointed. Due to the public service moratorium he did not initially receive an ‘acting- up’ allowance. He now seeks an allowance appropriate to his de facto grade. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
Initially, the complainant sought an acting allowance in November 2016. His current grade is 3 within the local authority structure, the position he is acting in is at grade 6. As the matter had not been resolved by October 2017 further representations were made. Eventually, in March 2018 it was agreed that the complainant would be paid an allowance at the Grade 5 level. He accepted this as an interim measure and he now seeks payment of the Grade 6 allowance retrospective to the date of his appointment. The complainant himself outlined his role which is a vital one in relation to water supply and infrastructure, which he has discharged to a high level. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The respondent accepts in general terms that the level of the complainant’s responsibilities is as claimed by him. That a person might find themselves acting at a higher level without remuneration was not unusual as the Moratorium on all cost increasing claims was in force. This was lifted in January 2016. However, while there is no dispute about the level of the duties carries out by the complainant the council may not go further back than the date when the delegated sanction was issued in January 2016. There are further issues to be considered in respect of the respondent’s workforce plan which is under review. |
Findings and Conclusions:
There are two issues to be decided. The first is the correct level of acting allowance due to the complainant. (The acting allowance is simply the difference between the appointed grade and that in which a person is acting.) The second issue is the effective date of any such allowance; either the date of the appointment of the complainant to the higher role, or the later date when the moratorium. In respect of the former of these, there is no basis for an allowance which does not reflect the actual (and generally agreed) level of the complainant’s work; i.e. grade 6. In relation to the operative date I note that the claim was submitted only in November 2016. In fairness, this reflects the fact that to have done so earlier would have been futile in view of the Moratorium. However, I am satisfied that the matter had been informally raised by the complainant before that date. Accordingly, I recommend to the parties that the complainant be given an acting allowance based on the Grade 6 salary, retrospective to January 2016, the date on which it was permissible to do so. |
Decision:
Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Acts, 1969 requires that I make a recommendation in relation to the dispute.
I uphold complaint/dispute CA-00018117-001 and recommend that the complainant receive an acting allowance equivalent to the local authority Grade 6 scale, retrospective to January 2016. |
Dated: November 6th 2018
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Pat Brady
Key Words:
Acting up allowance, public service moratorium. |