Wipro Ltd T/A Wipro Technologies Ireland Ltd (Represented by Eversheds Sutherland) v A Worker (Represented by Financial Services Union)

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Court: Labour Court (Ireland)
• Judgment Date: 06 November 2018
• Judgment citation (vLex): [2018] 11 JIEC 0601
• Docket Number: FULL RECOMMENDATION,DECISION NO.LCR21813,ADJ-00009688 CA-00012683-001
• Date: 06 November 2018

Labour Court

FULL RECOMMENDATION

CD/18/156

DECISION NO.LCR21813

ADJ-00009688 CA-00012683-001

PARTIES:

Wipro Limited T/A Wipro Technologies Ireland Ltd (Represented by Eversheds Sutherland)

and

A Worker (Represented by Financial Services Union)

DIVISION:

Chairman: Ms O'Donnell

Employer Member: Ms Doyle

Worker Member: Mr Hall

SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969

SUBJECT:

1 1. Appeal of Adjudication Officer Recommendation No.ADJ-00009688 CA-00012683-001.

BACKGROUND:

2 2. This matter was referred to an Adjudication Officer for investigation and Recommendation. On 30 May 2018 the Adjudication Officer issued the following Recommendation:-

3 The Recommendation is as follows .

1. The Complainant utilise the Progression Cycle at a very early date. The Respondent to expedite this.

2. The issue of the regrading from C2 to C3 to be decided strictly on its own merits irrespective of any externally decided “limits or ceiling / budget restrictions” on Grade movements.

3. If an eternal limit or “numerical celling” on regrading is an issue this should be discussed with the Complainant and her Union post and independently of the outcome of the Progression cycle regrading decision.

4. If this becomes the future stumbling block, then the issue can be referred back for a separate Adjudication decision on this specific “Ceilings” point

4 The Worker appealed the Adjudication Officer's Recommendation to the Labour Court on 22 June 2018 in accordance with Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969.

5 A Labour Court hearing took place on 19 October 2018.

DECISION:

6 The issue in dispute between the parties arises from the transfer of the Worker under a TUPE arrangement to the Employer. On transfer to the new Employer the Worker was mapped at “Grade Band 2”. It is the Worker's contention that she was mapped incorrectly and should be at “Grade Band 3.”

7 The Worker processed her claim through the internal procedure in the first instance and then on to the WRC where the Adjudication Officer had recommended that the Worker utilise the Progression Cycle at a very early date. The opportunity to do so had not yet arisen. It is the Union's position that based on the duties of the Worker and the level of responsibility attached to her post she should be graded at “Grade Band 3” level. In the Union's submission they set out examples of the work that they believe justifies the Worker seeking an upgrade to the higher level. The Union on behalf of...