LCR15406

FULL RECOMMENDATION CD/96/541 RECOMMENDATIONNO.LCR15406 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 did not receive an increase in pay that was promised by management.


BACKGROUND:

2. The worker who had 14 months' service with the Company claims that a raise due to her at the end of 1 year's service was not paid and that the Company indicated that it would not consider giving her an increase until July 1997. The worker, who is no longer employed with the Company, further claims that a colleague whom she states is related to a member of the Committee received an increase placing her at a weekly rate £32 above the claimant's rate, for similar work. The Company rejected the worker's claims. The dispute was referred 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. A raise in pay was promised after 1 year's service. This was not forthcoming which is particularly unfair in light of the fact that a colleague started on an unusually higher rate and received an increase after just 13 weeks. The colleague in question is related to a member of the Committee (details supplied).

2. The worker's duties warranted an increase in wages (details supplied).



3. The worker was advised that to justify an increase in wages, she would have to work 3 days in the accounts office and 2 days in the booking office, on shift. She was not employed to work on shift nor was she in receipt of a shift allowance.




COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:

4. 1. The worker did not merit an increase as she had received raises in December 1995 and in May, 1996 (details supplied). The Company did, however, indicate that it would consider a further increase in 1997.

2. It is traditional in the Company for the Committee, in consultation with management, to decide the rate of pay and duties to be carried out by the staff. The Claimant has received a just wage for the duties carried out by her for the Company (details supplied).



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.