FULL RECOMMENDATION
SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : HEALTH SERVICE EXECUTIVE - AND - A WORKER DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Ms Doyle Worker Member: Ms Treacy |
1. Appeal Of Adjudication Officer Recommendation No:ADJ-00013671 CA-00017985-001
BACKGROUND:
2. This matter was referred to an Adjudication Officer for investigation and Recommendation.
On 24 July 2018 the Adjudication Officer issued the following Recommendation:-
- “In the absence of any information from the Respondent I have to accept the Complainant’s version of events and this appears quite credible.
The Respondent should honour the agreement made with the Complainant’s union representative:”- •“To be placed permanently as an Employee Relations Manager on the maximum of the General Manager Salary Scale €79,481 with effect from 10 July 2016”
The Respondent appealed the Adjudication Officer’s Recommendation to the Labour Court on 30 August 2018 in accordance with Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969.
A Labour Court hearing took place on 2 November 2018.
DECISION:
This is an appeal by an employer against the Recommendation of an Adjudication Officer Adj-00013671 CA-00017985 in a claim by an employee under the Industrial Relations Act, 1969 concerning an allegation that her employer failed to honour an agreement.
The employer was not in attendance at the hearing before the Adjudication Officer for reasons which were explained to the Court. The Adjudication Officer found in favour of the Claimant and recommended that the employer should honour the agreement.
The alleged agreement in dispute was presented to the Court as the following:-
- [the Claimant]“To be placed permanently as an Employee Relations Manager on the maximum of the General Manager Salary Scale €79,481 with effect from 10thJuly 2016”.
As the Claimant was unrepresented, she presented her own case to the Court. She told the Court that since January 2016, she had sought to have her remunerative position reviewed in respect of her overall performance and increased workload. She submitted to the Court that it was her understanding that a proposal she submitted in November 2017 had been agreed between management and her Union, F�rsa on 5thJanuary 2018.
Management denied that such an agreement existed. It stated that the Claimant’s position was as a Grade VIII Officer, which was confirmed on 1stOctober 2013 in accordance with the provisions of HSE Circular 17/2013 which provided for a regularisation process. Furthermore, it maintained that the Claimant’s role, responsibilities and reporting relationship to an Employee Relations Manager have remained exactly the same as they were at the time of her regularisation. Management accepted that the Claimant’s workload had increased when she took on board work for TUSLA, however, it stated that this arrangement will cease on 31stDecember 2018 and it has introduced further supports to relieve her workload.
Having considered the submissions of both sides, the Court notes that no evidence of the alleged agreement was furnished to the Court. Moreover, the Claimant’s Union representative has confirmed to her that no such agreement ever existed, therefore the Court cannot uphold the Claimant’s claim.
Accordingly, the Court overturns the Recommendation of the Adjudication Officer and upholds the employer’s appeal.
The Court so Decides.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
MK______________________
6 November 2018Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Mary Kehoe, Court Secretary.