LCR22796

1. Appeal of Adjudication Officer Decision No(s) ADJ-00027608, CA-00035439-001

BACKGROUND:

2. The Union on behalf of the Worker appealed the Adjudication Officer’s Recommendation to the Labour Court on 22 August 2021 in accordance with Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court Hearing took place on 26 May 2022.

DECISION:

This is an appeal by SIPTU against an Adjudication Officer’s Recommendation ADJ-00027608 on behalf of a Worker with the HSE.

The dispute relates to a claim that the Worker was paid less than a co-worker over a number of years despite performing the same job duties. The Worker seeks pay parity with that co-worker (who retired in 2015) and a retrospective payment of €45,000, which represents the difference in earnings from 2008 to 2023. The Adjudicator rejected the Worker’s claim.

The Worker in this case is employed as a Porter in a health centre. In 2009 he became aware that a co-worker was paid at a higher rate for performing the same duties. He raised the matter informally with Human Resources during 2013-2016 and lodged a formal grievance in 2019. In support of his position he relied on documentation which showed that the co-worker was employed as a Porter.

The Worker is aggrieved as the employer’s explanations changed over time. He was initially told that the co-worker had commenced employment as a Porter before taking up the role of Attendant in 2008. After lodging a formal grievance, he was told that the co-worker was employed as an Attendant since the beginning of her employment with the HSE.

The Employer’s position is that the co-worker was employed as an Attendant since the commencement of her employment and was never employed as a Porter. The co-worker’s job title was incorrectly classified on certain documents. A grade code determines a person’s salary, and the co-worker was correctly classified as an Attendant. As the two workers were employed on different grades, different pay scales apply.

The Court has given careful consideration to the oral and written submissions of both parties.

It is accepted that the Worker’s current rate of pay is in line with the HSE salary scales for the role of Porter.

The Court notes that in 2022, in an effort to address the issues raised by the Worker, his job was evaluated under Circular 11/2017, which provides an independent mechanism for evaluation of job roles. As a result the Worker moved pay bands and received a retrospective payment to 2021. While the Worker may be unhappy with the outcome of that process, it is not the role of this Court to interfere with a nationally agreed process for job evaluations.

The Court further notes that the claim before Court, which relates to one individual, is a cost-increasing claim, that has wider knock-on implications if conceded.

In light of the above, the Court cannot recommend concession of the claim.

The Court so recommends.

	Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
	Katie Connolly
DC	______________________
31 July 2023	Deputy Chairman