Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

Clerk of Works

County Council

Representatives

Derek Kelleher Connect Trade Union

Amanda Kane Local Government Management Agency (LGMA)

Act

Complaint/Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969

CA-00035008-001

04/03/2020

The employee is employed as Clerk of Works / Building Inspector.  He commenced employment on 06 June 1972.  He was made permanent in his current role in 2010.  He is paid€2229.15 gross per fortnight.  This dispute arises from a claim by the employee for the payment of a dual allowance for extra duties carried out by him.  The employee claims he has carried out duties, above and beyond the duties his is employed to do, for several years without additional payment.  The dispute was submitted to the Workplace Relations Commission on 04 March 2020.

The employee claims that his duties increased significantly in recent years.  In 2007/2008 he took on additional duties when the Housing Engineer was transferred and not replaced.  The post of Housing Engineer was not replaced for several years.  When a new engineer was appointed he was not allocated to housing full-time and the employee continued to carry out additional duties.  The employee was not paid an allowance for the extra duties.

The employee believes he has not been satisfactorily remunerated for the additional workload.  The additional payment sought is miniscule in comparison to the savings he had brought to the employer. 

The employee first requested payment of a dual allowance in 2016.  His line managers recommended the approval of the additional allowance in February 2016.  The request for the allowance was rejected by the Director of Services in December 2016.  The employer offered to review the duties carried out by the employee, with a view to seeing if some functions could be re-assigned to lessen his workload.  The employee did not request that the employer review his duties, he requested that he be paid an allowance for the extra work carried out by him.

The employee’s union representative submitted that there was a precedent for payment of this claim in a decision of the Labour Court, LCR21594, when a colleague was awarded an additional allowance for carrying out duties which exceeded his assigned duties.

The employee believes his claim should be conceded considering his exemplary work ethic and the precedence set by LCR21594.  The employee is open to being paid an annual allowance if a dual allowance is not possible.

The employee commenced employment in 1972.  He was made permanent in his current role in 2010.  The employee’s union sought payment of a dual allowance for the employee in October 2016 and again in August 2019.  The employer could not pay the dual allowance but, it offered to review the duties assigned to the employee.  The employee did not avail himself of the offer to review the duties assigned to him.

In 2012, following a review of allowances in the public sector, the Department of Expenditure and Reform, abolished certain allowances, one of which was the dual allowance.  Circular EL 6/2012 withdrew sanction to pay certain allowance, including the dual allowance, to new beneficiaries with effect from 01 February 2012.  Before 2012 a dual allowance was paid where an employee was carrying out the duties of two posts or additional duties over and above the duties in the substantive post.

The employee is currently paid at the maximum point of his pay scale.  He also receives an on-call allowance, overtime allowance of 8 hours per week and a temporary allowance of 4 hours overtime at double time.  Effectively the employee is paid overtime allowances that equate to 40% of his basic salary of €58,212.00.  These payments are significant and are not paid to others of the same grade/title. 

The employer offered to meet with the employee and his union representative to review his duties in 2016 and 2019.  The employee did not avail himself of the offer.  The employer is still open to meeting to review the employee’s range of duties and current allowances, with a view to redistributing any tasks the employer believes can and should be carried out elsewhere.  The employer is however satisfied that the employee’s tasks are reflective of his role.

The employee has not exhausted the internal process available to him under the employer’s grievance procedure.

Clause 1.27 of the Public Service Agreement 2010-2014 precludes trade unions from making cost increasing claims.  This is a cost increasing claim and as such it should not be conceded.

The employer has no authority to pay an allowance which has been abolished.

CA-00035008-001

This dispute concerns a claim by the employee for an allowance for significant additional work he claims he is and has carried out, over and beyond the duties initially assigned to him.

The employee spoke at the hearing and it was clear to me that he honestly believes that he has not been satisfactorily remunerated for the additional work he has taken on over recent years.  It was acknowledged by the employer that the employee is a dedicated, hard-working and obliging member of staff.  It was also clear that the employee was not seeking to be relieved of duties.

The employee claimed payment of a dual allowance in 2016 and 2019.  The employer did not concede the claim for several reasons; the employee was already being paid an allowance for on-call duties, overtime and the dual allowance had been abolished in 2012. 

The employer provided me with a copy of Circular E.L.06/2012 in which it is stated that the dual allowance was abolished with effect from 01 February 2012. 

The employer provided details of the current payments being made to the employee.  He is on the maximum point of his scale, and he is paid an on-call allowance, an allowance equal to 8 hours overtime per week and a temporary allowance of 4 hours overtime at double time per week.   The overtime allowances equate to 40% of the employee’s basic salary.

In my opinion this claim is about recognition for additional work carried out.  The employer cannot concede a claim for an allowance that has been abolished.  I note that the employee did not accept the employer’s invitation to engage in a review of duties in 2016 or 2019.  I note the employer believes the employee did not exhaust the internal process available to him under their grievance procedure.  I believe there is scope for further engagement between the parties to reach an acceptable solution to this issue.

I do not accept that Labour Court Decision LCR21594 is a precedent for conceding this claim.  The Labour Court stated the allowance in that case was on a personal to holder basis only.

I recommend the following:

·       That the employee accepts that payment of a dual allowance is prohibited.

·       That the employer reviews the current temporary allowance with a view to providing the employee with some certainty about payment into the future.

·       That the parties agree to meet to review the employee range of duties.

·       That the parties, when they meet, take a constructive approach to finding an acceptable solution, given that the employee has been a dedicated and valued employee for many years.

CA-00035008-001

I have carefully considered the submissions, documents presented to me and the statements of the employee at the hearing.  I recommend the following:

·       That the employee accepts that payment of a dual allowance is prohibited.

·       That the employer reviews the current temporary allowance with a view to providing the employee with some certainty about payment into the future.

·       That the parties agree to meet to review the employee’s range of duties.

·       That the parties, when they meet, take a constructive approach to finding an acceptable solution, given that the employee has been a dedicated and valued employee for many years.

Dual allowance

Allowance for extra duties