Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

A Bring Centre Operative

A waste management company and public body.

Representatives

Mr Thomas Murtagh, Forsa Trade Union

A manager

Act

Complaint/Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969

CA-00016159-001

06/12/2017

The Complainant commenced employment with the Respondent as a General Operative in March 2002. He is currently assigned to the Bring Centre section in the Waste Management Services Division.

Under the Public Service Agreements, a review of all aspects of the operation of the Waste Management Services was commenced by the Respondent in 2016 in consultation with the trade unions. Included in the review was the operation of the Bring Centres.

In October 2017 a proposal was put to the trade unions in relation to the duties being performed by General Operatives in the Bring Centres. The unions made the case that the duties being performed should attract a rate of pay commensurate with the duties and responsibilities being accepted by the General Operatives.

There are eighteen General Operative staff assigned to the Bring Centres. Of these

·         2 staff were on Red Circled rates.

·         2 staff were on Cleansing rates

·         6 staff were on Corporate Council Group 1 rates

·         8 staff were on Corporate Council Group 2 rates.

The proposal to move the 14 staff on the Group 1 & 2 rates up to Group 3 still left them on a slightly lesser rate than 3 of the staff on the Red-circled and Cleansing rates. The exception was the Complainant – the Respondent proposed to move the Complainant onto a new rate slightly higher than that being offered to the 14 staff being moved onto the Grade 3 rate of pay. The proposed group 3 rate is €14.1690 per hour, The Complainant would be moved to €14.2185 per hour.

This proposal was not acceptable to the Complainant who felt that he should receive an increase similar to the 14-staff moving to the Group 3 rate.

The Complainant commenced employment on a temporary basis in 2001. In 2002 he started on a full-time basis in a different department for the next three years. The Complainant then moved to another section for a four-year period.

In 2009 the Complainant moved to his current department and then to the Bring Centre in 2010.

The Complainant was Red Circled from his time in a former department, 2002.

A recent restructuring of pay rates in his current department gave certain staff a financial upgrade and the Complainant feels that as he is one of the more senior staff that he too should benefit to the same value as the upgrade.

1.       The WMS review is being implemented by the Respondent as it is the intention of the Respondent to put WMS on a solid footing to ensure retention of service with direct labour through staff employed by the respondent. It was not an exercise in negotiating pay increases but rather putting in place new structures and practices that should guarantee the continuation of services.

2.       The increase in pay rates for the staff on the lower Group rates working in the Bring Centres is not a pay deal. It is recognition of the fact that the duties being performed should attract a rate of pay commensurate with the duties involved. The Complainant is already being paid an hourly rate that is virtually the same as the Group 3 rate and the Respondent is willing to increase his rate to maintain a small differential in his favour.

3.       The fact that the Respondent is paying a noticeable increase from a lower rate of pay does not entitle other staff, already on a higher rate of pay, to a similar increase.

4.       All staff are performing the same range of duties and are being paid approximately the same rate of pay. They are all being fairly remunerated for this.

Conclusion.

The Respondent is paying all staff pay rates that are commensurate with the duties they are required to carry out on a day-to-day basis. To increase the pay rate of one employee above that being paid to all other staff would, in the first place, be unfair and would lead to an unquantifiable number of knock-on claims which the Respondent is not in a position to pay.

The Complainant is requesting a general pay increase which the Respondent is precluded from considering under the current Public Service Agreement.

The Respondent commenced an exercise to re-structure pay rates in the Bring Centre section with an objective of recognising the fact that the duties being performed should attract a rate of pay commensurate with the duties involved.

At all times throughout this process consultation with the appropriate trade unions was maintained and the final agreement on the matter was the subject of a ballot of employees and was accepted by a majority of them.

The Complainant’s request for a wage increase proportionate to that of 14 of his colleagues would constitute a general wage increase which, under the current Public Service Agreement, be contrary to that agreement.

All staff are now performing the same range of duties and are being paid approximately the same rate of pay.

For all the reasons outlined above I must recommend that the Complainant’s claim fails.

As outlined above.

Pay rates