LCR23107

PARTIES:

DIVISION:

SUBJECT:

Appeal of Adjudication Officer Decision No's: ADJ-00048862 (CA-00056252, IR-SC-00001308)

BACKGROUND:

The Employer appealed the Adjudication Officer’s Recommendation to the Labour Court on 31 July 2024 in accordance with Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969.

On 24 July 2024 the Adjudication Officer issued the following Recommendation:

“I recommend that the worker be paid the amount deducted from her arrears in relation to the training allowance and that, for as long as she is required to carry out the training function, the allowance continue to apply.  This recommendation is in full and final settlement of the dispute.”

A Labour Court hearing took place on 23 January 2025.

DECISION:

The matter before the Court is a dispute about the employer’s decision to clawback an allowance paid to the worker for undertaking training duties when she received a retrospective payment in May 2022 following confirmation of her grade at Grade V level.

The origin of this dispute stems from 2005 when the worker, a Clerical Officer, was seconded to a project working on a new IPMS system during which time she was awarded an acting Grade V Allowance. That project ceased in 2008 and her acting up allowance removed. Thereafter, the worker - who did not return to work in her substantive role - was assigned training duties on the IPMS system and awarded a Training Allowance for undertaking those specific duties.

The worker subsequently pursued two claims under separate processes to be graded at Grade V level. Both processes concluded in 2021, in the workers favour.

The outcome of an evaluation process under HR Circular 014/2016 (Job Evaluation Scheme) concluded in October 2021 with a finding that the worker should be graded at Grade V level.

Separately, the outcome of a WRC adjudication process concluded in December 2021 with a finding that the worker was entitled, under the terms of Circular 17/2013, to have her Acting Grade V Allowance reinstated from the date of its termination in 2008.

The employer accepted the outcome of both processes and implemented the worker’s upgrade to Grade V. In doing so, the employer ceased payment of her Training Allowance with effect from January 2022 and, in calculating the amount of retrospection owed to her, deducted the value of the Training Allowance paid to her in the period from 2008 to 2021.

The worker objects to (i) the deduction the value of the Training Allowance from her retrospective lump sum payment and (ii) the termination of the allowance, in circumstances where she continues to deliver training.

Both parties agree that the nub of the issue before the Court is whether the training duties undertaken by the worker in the period from 2008 to 2021 are duties normally encompassed by a person in a Grade V level role, or whether they are separate and distinct duties that attract a separate allowance.

The worker’s position is that she delivers specialist training on the IPMS system in a classroom setting which is a separate and distinct duty unrelated to her Grade V role. A Training Allowance, which was subject to an annual approval process by her line manager, was paid to her for undertaking that specialist role on an uninterrupted basis for 14 years (from May 2008 to December 2021). She was in shock when the payment was unilaterally ceased by her employer, without notice or consultation.

The Employer’s position is that the worker was paid an allowance in recognition of the fact that training duties assigned to her in 2008 were at a higher level than her Clerical Officer grade. It contends that training duties form part of normal duties conducted by those at Grade V level, and the training delivered by the worker on the IPMS system is no different to training delivered by other Grade V colleagues who work in HR, IT or Laboratories and deliver training on the operation of annual leave, SAP and lab systems. It contends that it is not appropriate for the worker to retain an allowance for additional duties in circumstances where she is awarded back pay for her retrospective grading at Grade V level.  It acknowledges that communications with the worker about the ceasing of her allowance and the calculation of her retrospective payment were lacking.

The Court has given careful consideration to the submissions of the parties.

The Court is of the view, based on the oral and written submissions made, that once the worker was upgraded from her Clerical Officer grade to Grade V level, the training allowance for undertaking training duties was no longer applicable to her as those training duties now formed part and parcel of her Grade V role. As her upgrade to Grade V was backdated and a retrospective payment awarded, it was not unreasonable for the employer when calculating the backdated award to take account of the allowance paid to the worker for carrying out duties over and above her Clerical Officer salary. To do otherwise, would mean that the worker would have been paid two types of payments for undertaking the same duties, which would have wider repercussive effects.

In light of the above, and having regard to the submissions made, the Court cannot recommend in favour of the Worker’s claim.

In the Court’s view, it is understandable that the worker is aggrieved that the training allowance was suddenly removed without explanation in circumstances where she believed, albeit erroneously, that she would continue to benefit from that allowance at Grade V level. The worker spent many years trying to resolve her grading status and, while that matter was ultimately resolved to her benefit, communications with the worker about how her re-grading would be implemented were dealt with in an unsatisfactory manner by the Employer.

Having regard to all of the circumstance of this case as outlined at the hearing, the Court recommends that the employer pay the worker the sum of €2,500 as a goodwill gesture in full and final settlement of this matter.

The Court so recommends.

	Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
	Katie Connolly
CC	______________________
29 January 2024	Deputy Chairman

NOTE

Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Ceola Cronin, Court Secretary.