LCR22390

1.Appeal of Adjudication Officer Decision no. ADJ-00021172 CA-00027737-001

BACKGROUND:

2.The Worker appealed the Adjudication Officer’s Recommendation to the Labour Court on 25 February 2020 in accordance with Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969.

On 15 January 2020 the Adjudication Officer issued the following Recommendation:-

“I recommend that the claim is not upheld."

A Labour Court hearing took place on 23 March 2021.

DECISION:

The background to this case is that the Worker is a catering employee. In 2014 the Catering Officer took a career break. The Executive Chef took on the duties of that post and the Worker in the instant case took on the role of Executive Chef.

The Worker contends that he was not paid the appropriate rate for higher duties in the period from 2014 to 2017. He then signed a contract for a specified purpose in June 2017 at the grade of Executive Chef, ‘under protest’, as he signalled his intention to pursue a permanent contract in the higher role. Although his contract expired in April 2019, the arrangement has continued.

The Executive Chef who is ‘acting’ in the role of Catering Officer brought an identical case to the Court to the instant case, see LCR 22321. In that case, the Court noted the pending de-congregation of the employment setting, likely to be completed this year, that this was known when the worker in that case signed the contract in 2017 and the Court concluded, as a result, that a permanent appointment to the higher post could not be recommended.

The circumstances of both cases are identical and the case made by the Worker in the instant case is a direct consequence of the circumstances of his colleague. In LCR 22321, the Court noted that the Worker concerned has been left in an unsatisfactory situation with a lack of clarity in her grading level. The Court recommended that she be paid any money due to the performance of higher duties from 2014 to 2017 and that she be paid a sum of €3500 in compensation for the unsatisfactory situation in which she had been put by the Employer. In identical circumstances, it follows logically that the Court recommends in the instant case that identical terms be applied by the Employer to the Worker.

The Court recommends, therefore, that the Employer pay the Worker any money due for the performance of higher duties from 2014 to 2017 and that they pay compensation of €3500 to him.

	Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
	Tom Geraghty
H.M.	______________________
07/04/2021	Deputy Chairman