LCR15405

FULL RECOMMENDATION CD/96/540 RECOMMENDATIONNO.LCR15405 INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : NATIONAL RADIO CABS - AND - A WORKER DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Flood Employer Member: Mr Keogh Worker Member: Mr Rorke

SUBJECT:
1. Claim by the worker that she was unfairly asked to accept a decrease in her wages.


BACKGROUND:

2. The worker, who has 2 years' service with the Company, claims that management advised her that she would have to accept a decrease of £17 per week in wages in order to bring her remuneration into line with that of a colleague whom the Company claims is doing similar work.

Additionally, the worker claims that another colleague whom she alleges is related to a member of the Company's Committee is in receipt of wages which are considerably higher than hers. The Company rejected the worker's claims.

The dispute was referred by the worker to the Labour Court, on the 8th of October, 1996, in accordance with Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. The Court investigated the dispute on the 25th of November, 1996.

WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:

3. 1. The colleague in receipt of higher wages started on a rate higher than the normal starting rate and received an increase of £32 per week after only 13 weeks with the Company. This apparent favourable treatment may be because she is related to a member of the Company Committee (details supplied).

2. The reasons given by the Company for her special treatment are unacceptable and do not justify her wage increases (details supplied).



3. The claimant has been given additional duties (details supplied) because she rejected the Company's attempt to decrease her wages. This situation is clearly unfair.


COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:

4. 1. The worker commenced on wages of £120 per week. Since then she has received numerous increases in pay. The Company indicated that it will consider a further increase in 1997.

2. The comparator worker is not related to the member of the Committee. She is actually related to his wife.

3. The comparator worker performed duties which warranted the wages she received.

4. It is traditional in the Company for the Committee, in consultation with the Manager, to decide on the rates of pay and the various duties of the staff. The worker is receiving a fair wage based on the duties performed by her.




RECOMMENDATION:

There is a requirement in this Company for a salary structure that is transparent and fair.

Because of the lack of such a structure at present in the Company, the Court is of the view that, in this particular case, the claimant was treated unfairly.

The Court, therefore, recommends that the claimant be paid a lump sum of £250 by the Company, as compensation.



Signed on behalf of the Labour Court



Finbarr Flood
19th December, 1996______________________
M.K./S.G.Deputy Chairman



NOTE

Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Michael Keegan, Court Secretary.