This dispute concerns the Complainant's claim that the WRC Adjudication Officer's decision did not uphold the Complainant’s contention that he had received and signed a written contract which entitled him to work the same roster and on-call arrangements of the established Inspectors Grade. This particular dispute was referred to the Workplace Relations Commissioner for investigation and recommendation. On the 26th of July 2021, the Adjudication Officer recommended the following;

"I do not recommend concession of the Employee's claim that he is entitled to roster and on-call arrangements similar to that of established inspectors in the grade.  I recommend that Employer pay the Employee compensation of €3,000 for the unreasonable and careless manner in which it dealt with the Employee's promotion."

On the 3rd of September 2021, the Complainant appealed the Adjudication Officer’s Recommendation to the Labour Court in accordance with Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969.

The issue in dispute between the parties arose from a Workplace relations commission agreement to resolve the issue of long-term acting up arrangements. The agreement provided for two arrangements 1) where an employee had been acting up in a higher grade continuously for four years in an established vacancy 2) was a restatement of an existing arrangement whereby an individual on project work can achieves a higher grade under the eight-year rule. Appointments made under the eight- year rule are made on a personal to holder basis. If the Worker returns to his previous work position, he will retain the higher grade on a personal to holder basis.

The Complainant’s Union submitted that the letter of appointment that the Complainant received arising from the WRC agreement set out that he was on a specific contract which provided details of his reporting structure, pension arrangements, salary and stated that he would be required to work 48 hours over a 5-day arrangement. However, when the Complainant reported for duty, he was advised by his line manager that he would be required to work 48 hours on a 5 over 7-day roster.   This required the Complainant to work weekends, nights, answer and attend calls. The Union submitted that other employees under this contract worked 45 of the 48 hours and retained 3 hours for call outs. The net effect for this Worker is that he does not receive any payment for the first three hours of the call outs.  It is the Union’s submission that the Complainant met the criteria for the full grade and therefore should get the full terms and conditions of that grade.

The Respondent submitted that the wrong contract was issued to the Complainant in error. They accepted that they had not re-issued what they believed to be the correct contract but submitted that was because they were in talks with the Union.  The Respondent initially submitted that the Complainant under that agreement was only entitled to the pay of the higher grade. However, they accepted that this was not written down anywhere, but it was their position that everyone knew this was how acting up for this category of staff applied.

In response to questions from the Court the Respondent confirmed that the Complainant was in fact entitled to more than just the rate of pay. The Employer confirmed that he also received the annual leave of the higher grade and paid into the pensions scheme of the higher grade. The Employer submitted that they were not aware of the issues in respect of on-call and that these had never been raised with them.  The Court determined that the manner in which this issue has been addressed to date had been less than satisfactory and therefore awarded the Complainant the sum of €3,000 in compensation.
https://www.workplacerelations.ie/en/cases/2021/november/lcr22501.html