Valeant Pharmaceuticals Ireland Bausch & Lomb v A Worker (Represented by Services Industrial Professional Technical Union)

JurisdictionIreland
CourtLabour Court (Ireland)
Docket NumberFULL RECOMMENDATION DECISION NO. LCR21665 ADJ-00008439 CA-00011432-001
Date23 February 2018

Labour Court (Ireland)

FULL RECOMMENDATION

CD/17/336

DECISION NO. LCR21665

ADJ-00008439 CA-00011432-001

PARTIES:
Valeant Pharmaceuticals Ireland Bausch & Lomb
and
A Worker (Represented by Services Industrial Professional Technical Union)
DIVISION:

Chairman: Mr Haugh

Employer Member: Mr Marie

Worker Member: Ms Tanham

SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969

SUBJECT:
1

1. Appeal Of Adjudication Officer Decision No: ADJ-00008439 CA-00011432-001.

BACKGROUND:
2

2. This dispute concerns the Worker's claim that he carried out the role of stand in manager in the Bio True Injection Moulding Machine area from 2012–2016 and he should have been paid the 25% premium attached to that role. This dispute was referred to an Adjudication Officer for investigation and recommendation. On the 3rd October 2017, the Adjudication Officer issued the following Recommendation:-

“Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Acts, 1969 requires that I make a recommendation in relation to the dispute. For the reasons set out above I do not uphold complaint CA-00011432-001 and it is dismissed”

3

On the 13 November, 2017, the Employee appealed the Adjudication Officer's Recommendation to the Labour Court in accordance with Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on 13th February 2018.

4

The following is the Recommendation of the Court:

DECISION:
Background to the Dispute
5

The Worker acted up in a Stand-in-Manager position for a number of months in 2010 and again in 2011. On both occasions he received a 25% allowance for the duration of the acting-up period.

6

A vacancy for a Stand-In-Manager position became available in early 2012. It was initially filled by a colleague of the Worker's without having first been advertised internally, as is required under the terms of a Company-Union agreement. The Worker raised a grievance in relation to the manner in which the position had been filled. The position was subsequently advertised and the Worker unsuccessfully applied for it. The colleague who had been performing the role since early 2012 was the successful candidate.

7

That colleague was promoted to the position of Manager in March 2015. The position he vacated at that time was again filled by the Company without having been advertised.

8

The Worker submits that the colleagues appointed to the Stand-In-Manager position in 2012 and 2015 respectively were not fully trained to carry out many of the functions...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT