FULL RECOMMENDATION
| CD/20/293 | RECOMMENDATIONNO.LCR22318 |
SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES :HSE DML, MIDLAND AREA
- AND -
A WORKER
DIVISION :
| Chairman: | Ms Jenkinson | | Employer Member: | Ms Connolly | | Worker Member: | Ms Treacy |
SUBJECT:
1.Pay on promotion
BACKGROUND:
2.The case concerns a claim by the Worker that his pay on promotion did not reflect FEMPI restoration increases as agreed under the Public Service Stability Agreement 2018-2020 and associated circular 010/2019
On 14 October 2020, the Worker, referred this dispute to the Labour Court in accordance with Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969 and agreed to be bound by the Court's Recommendation. A Labour Court hearing took place on 26 November 2020.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
The Worker claims that due to an oversight or inaccurate interpretation of the Circular, he believes he is still one of only 4 Paramedic staff still suffering as a result of the 10% pay cut.
The Worker believes that Section 5 of Circular 010/2019 was not complied with and as a result he was adversely affected when accepting the promotion.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
The Employer claims the Worker is wrong in attempting to suggest he is being paid less than what is due to him as staff who are not on a new entrant pay scale are not entitled to specific new entrant pay restoration to un-wind FEMP as per circular 010/2019. The Employer could not address matters covered by national circulars and public sector pay agreements, which by their nature are collective in effect with differing outcomes for different grades of staff.
This claim, if successful, would create an un-workable precedent to undermine a national public sector pay agreement, which has far wider collective effect that just this Worker.
RECOMMENDATION:
The matter before the Court was brought under Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act 1969 and concerns a claim by a Claimant employed as a Paramedic Supervisor in the National Ambulance Service that his pay on promotion did not reflect FEMPI restoration increases as agreed under the Public Service Stability Agreement 2018-2020 and the associated Circular 010/2019.
The Claimant was promoted from Advanced Paramedic grade to Paramedic Supervisor grade following a competition for the promotional posts, held in
2018. His appointment to the promotional grade took place on 1st April 2019. On 1st March 2019, Circular 010/2019,Application of additional increments awarded in relation to New Entrants under the Public Services Stability Agreement 2018-2020, was implemented. This provided for the restoration of a pay reduction applied in 2011 under FEMPI. It provided for the by- passing of two incremental points (points 4 and 8) to those on entry grades, thereby reducing the time spent on the scale for progression to the maximum point. This benefit became applicable from the date the next increment was due. The Claimant had been on an entry grade prior to his promotion, but did not benefit from Circular 010/2019 as his next increment was not due until August 2019, therefore his pay on promotion in April 2019 was applied having regard to his position on the salary scale in April 2019.
The Claimant claimed that he had lost out, as other colleagues who had similarly been promoted from the 2018 competition had benefitted from the restoration provided by Circular 010/2019, as their increment date was prior to their promotion appointment date. The Claimant pointed out that Circular 010/2019 specifically stated that it should be brought to the attention of all relevant staff, however, he was not informed of its contents at the time he was promoted. He said that had he known he may have deferred his promotion acceptance.
Management stated that the Claimant’s salary on promotion was applied strictly in accordance with the provision of Circular 10/71, paragraph 14 “Starting Pay on Promotion”. It also held that with Circular 010/2019 did not apply to him, it provides as follows:- - “To qualify for this measure the employee must still be on an entry level grade. If the employee is no longer on a new entrant grade (for example, as a result of a promotion) they do not qualify for this measure.”
Management accepted that Circular 010/2019 may not have been brought to the Claimant’s attention, however, it maintained that his Trade Union was well aware of its contents having been involved in its negotiation. It disputed the Claimant’s contention that had he been aware of its contents he may have deferred his promotion acceptance, as it argued that there was no guarantee that he would be offered it at a later stage. Finally, management stated that this claim had broader implications, it related to collective pay agreements and was a cost increasing claim, prohibited by the terms of PSSA.
Having considered the submissions of both parties, the Court notes that Circular 010/2019 was brought to the attention of the Union representing the Claimant’s grade but was not specifically brought to his attention as a “relevant” member of staff, despite the fact that it was issued on 1st March 2019 and his promotion became effective on 1st April 2019. The Court is of the view that there is an obligation on Management to ensure that Circulars are brought to the attention of relevant members of staff. Had he been aware of its contents he could have made an informed decision about his promotion.
However, the Court is satisfied that the Claimant was properly and appropriately assimilated onto the promotional pay scale in accordance with Circular 10/71 and that the benefits bestowed by Circular 010/2019 did not apply to him as he was no longer in an entry grade.
Accordingly, the Court does not find in favour of the Claimant’s claim.
The Court so Recommends.
 | Signed on behalf of the Labour Court | | | | Caroline Jenkinson | | NJ | ______________________ | | 09 December 2020 | Deputy Chairman |
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Noel Jordan, Court Secretary. |
