FULL RECOMMENDATION
SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : DAA LIMITED - AND - A WORKER DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Foley Employer Member: Ms Connolly Worker Member: Mr McCarthy |
1. Appeal of Adjudication Officer Decision No: ADJ-00009304 CA-00012150-001
BACKGROUND:
2. The Worker appealed the Adjudication Officer’s Recommendation to the Labour Court on 19 February 2019 in accordance with Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969.
On 11 January 2019 the Adjudication Officer issued the following Recommendation:-
“Having considered the submissions of both parties and all of the additional information submitted, I declare that the complaint is not well founded”.
A Labour Court hearing took place on 6 November 2019.
DECISION:
The Court has given very careful consideration to the written and oral submissions of the parties.
The matter before the Court concerns a claim by the Union that the worker concerned has not received a pay increase due to him and that he has been treated less favourably than other workers who, like him, are paid through a combination of salary and red-circling payment.
The employer raised a procedural issue at the outset. The employer submitted that internal dispute resolution procedures established as part of an agreement between the parties on a Cost Recovery Programme (CRP) have been bypassed by the claimant and the Trade Union. The Trade Union submitted that the matter before the Court concerned the application of a pay increase earlier Recommended by the Court (LCR20997) and that the matter before the Court did not arise from the CRP.
The Court has made clear in numerous previous Recommendations that where parties to a trade dispute have in place agreed internal arrangements for the resolution of such disputes, it is inappropriate for the Court to support the bypassing of such procedures by making Recommendations on such trade disputes prior to the exhaustion of the agreed internal procedures.
The Court notes from the submissions that the CRP agreement between the parties established a ‘Disputes Process’ to deal with issues of dispute arising ‘during implementation of the Cost Recovery Process’.
The employer, when questioned by the Court, confirmed that the re-deployment of the worker and his subsequent ‘red-circling’ arose from car park re-structuring, which was not a matter arising from the CRP. The matter before the Court concerns the interaction between the worker’s salary and red-circling arrangements and the application of a pay increase.
The Court also notes that when the within dispute was referred to the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 13(2) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969 no party notified the Adjudication Officer in accordance with Section 13(3)(b)(ii) of that Act that it objected to the dispute being investigated by an Adjudication Officer.
Finally, the Court notes that the parties to the CRP are disagreed as regards the applicability of their agreed Disputes Process to the within dispute.
Taking all of these facts together the Court is not in a position to find that it has been clearly established that the within dispute is one which falls within the purview of the CRP established Disputes Process.
The Court has therefore considered the substance of the matter before it. The Trade Union submits that both the claimant’s salary and red-circled payment should be subject to increase by the amount of the pay increase set out in Labour Court Recommendation number LCR 20997. The employer has submitted that the application of that pay increase to the worker’s salary element only was entirely in line with the terms of the document signed by the claimant and the employer on 26thNovember 2014 which set out the terms of his remuneration.
At the hearing of the Court, the Trade Union did not dispute that the method of application of the pay increase was in accordance with the terms set out in the document of November 2014. The Trade Union did however assert that those terms are different to terms applied to other workers.
The Court has no detail before it of the arrangements applying to workers other than the claimant before the Court. In those circumstances, the Court is not in a position to recommend that the terms of his remuneration signed by the claimant and the employer in November 2014 should be set aside on the basis of the within claim. The Court therefore does not recommend concession of the claim.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Foley
MK______________________
7 November 2019Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Mary Kehoe, Court Secretary.