FULL RECOMMENDATION
| CD/20/205 | RECOMMENDATIONNO.LCR22332 |
SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
PARTIES :ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
- AND -
A WORKER
(REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION)
DIVISION :
| Chairman: | Ms Jenkinson | | Employer Member: | Mr Murphy | | Worker Member: | Ms Tanham |
SUBJECT:
1.Upgrade to Level 4.
BACKGROUND:
2.The case concerns a claim by the Worker that she be appointed to the grade of Level 4 on the basis that the duties and responsibilities she was carrying out were that of Tech C.
The Employer said that the Worker was upgraded from Level 6 to Level 5 following complex and lengthy negotiations with the Union. This was accepted by both the Worker and the Union and there is no basis for the position being adopted by the Worker.
The Union on behalf of the Worker said that she was asked by management to carry out the duties of a retired colleague who was graded at Tech C. During discussions in 2016 with the Employer the Tech C staff were upgraded to Level 4. The Claimant should have been upgraded at that time.
On the 5 June 2020, the Union on behalf of the Worker referred the 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 the 11 December 2020.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Worker should be appointed to the grade of Level 4 on the basis that the duties and responsibilities she was carrying out were that of Tech C.
2. The Worker was carrying out the role of Tech C without additional remuneration due to the Public Sector Embargo.
3. In 2016 the Tech C grades were upgraded to Level 4. The Worker was excluded.
EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Worker was a Grade 6 and not a Tech C grade. She was only carrying out some of the Tech C duties due to a retirement.
2. As part of the discussions with the Union in 2016, the Worker was upgraded from Level 6 to Level 5.
3. This was accepted by both the Worker and the Union.
RECOMMENDATION:
The matter before the Court was brought under Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act 1969 and concerns a claim by the Union on behalf of an employee that she should be graded at Scientific Officer II Level 4 in accordance with an Agreement concluded in 2016.
In submitting her claim, the Claimant has in accordance with Section 20(1) of the Act undertaken to accept the Recommendation of the Court.
The Claimant is employed as a Scientific Officer III Level 5. She maintained that in 2009 she took over the duties of a Technician C (now graded as Scientific Officer II Level 4), who retired and accordingly claimed that she should be graded at Level 4.
In 2016, an Agreement was reached between the Union and Management on “Integration of Technician C into mainstream EPA Staff grading structure” which was signed off and approved by Department of Environment, Community & Local Government with the consent of the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform. This agreement provided that all Technician C staff would be graded at Scientific Officer II Level 4. The agreement made specific reference to the Claimant’s position, which had been the subject of negotiations prior to 2016. Her position was dealt with under the heading: - - “Regrading of Programme Officer Level 6 post in Monaghan to Scientific Officer III (Level 5)”.
With the Union’s agreement, approval was given to regrade her role from Level 6 to Level 5, subject to certain conditions being met. On her appointment to that position in October 2016, she agreed and undertook to accept the full terms of the 2016 Agreement.
In June 2017, the Union on her behalf submitted a claim for regrading to Level 4.
Having considered the submissions of both parties, the Court notes that the 2016 Agreement was fully implemented by management in accordance with the agreement reached on this issue with the Union. Furthermore, the Claimant fully accepted the terms of that agreement and was regraded to Level 5 as a result.
The Court notes that it is accepted by the Union that the Claimant does not carry out the full duties and responsibilities of the Level 4 role.
In all the circumstances of this claim, the Court does not see merit in the Union’s claim and accordingly does not recommend in favour of the claim.
The Court so Recommends.
 | Signed on behalf of the Labour Court | | | | Caroline Jenkinson | | CR | ______________________ | | 23 December, 2020 | Deputy Chairman |
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Ciaran Roche, Court Secretary. |
