ADJUDICATION OFFICER Recommendation on dispute under Industrial Relations Act 1969
Investigation Recommendation Reference: IR - SC - 00000239
Parties:
| Worker | Employer |
Anonymised Parties | An Industrial Grade Employee | A Department |
Representatives | Con Casey SIPTU | Department Legal Advisor |
Dispute:
Act | Dispute Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969 | IR - SC - 00000239 | 28/04/2022 |
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Úna Glazier-Farmer
Date of Hearing: 14/12/2023
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969 (as amended) following the referral of the dispute to me by the Director General, I inquired into the dispute and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any information relevant to the dispute.
Background:
This dispute was heard over two days with the parties following a referral of the matter to the Workplace Relations Commission by the Employee on 28 April 2022. There was no procedural issue raised by either party of the referral of this matter to the Workplace Relations Commission for recommendation. |
Summary of Workers Case:
The Worker has been employed with the Employer since 10 February 2003 initially as a Craft Gardener and more recently promoted to Charge Hand Craft Gardener. It is his position that he has undertaken a number of duties associated with the position of Charge Hand and at times Foreman duties since 2005. The additional duties were outline. It was the Worker’s position that since taking up the higher grade in March there has been no material change too his previous role. The Worker has sought the payment including de facto pension accrual. A number of Labour Court Recommendations were relied upon and in particular LCR21621 of 28 November 2017 issued by the Chairman. |
Summary of Employer’s Case:
It was the Employer’s position that no application for acting up was received and approved and the Worker does not satisfy the 84 days requirement for acting up. At all times the Worker has been paid correctly. |
Conclusions:
In conducting my investigation, I have taken into account all relevant submissions presented to me by the parties.
While I appreciate the Employer’s position, the only dispute before me relates to the particular and unique circumstances of this Worker. Of particular note is the submission that the Worker carried on these additional duties of a higher grade with the full knowledge and support of his superiors.
The Chair of the Labour Court in the Limerick City and County Council v Technical, Engineering and Electrical Union Recommendation LCR21621 recommended; “That the parties should accept that any practice of working unremunerated hours by caretakers or craft workers in the Council should be agreed as unacceptable.” While this dispute does not relate to hours it does relate to additional duties above the Workers grade. |
Recommendation:
Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969 requires that I make a recommendation in relation to the dispute.
Taking into consideration the Workers grade as of March 2023 and in order to close the matter, it is recommended that the Employer pay the Worker €3,072 to compensate him. It should be noted that this recommendation is particular to the facts and circumstances of this individual Workers dispute only.
Dated: 18/12/2023
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Úna Glazier-Farmer
Key Words:
IR – Acting Up |