INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
FINGAL LEADER PARTNERSHIP CO. LTD
- AND -
(REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION)
Chairman: Mr Duffy
Employer Member: Ms Doyle
Worker Member: Ms Tanham
1. Appeal of Rights Commissioner's Recommendation R-119367-IR-12/EH.
2. The case before the Court concerns the Worker's appeal of Rights Commissioner's Recommendation R-119367-IR-12/EH. The dispute relates specifically to the Worker's claim that during the course of her current employment as a part-time Accounts Administrator, she has not received the correct rate of pay as provided for in her terms and conditions of employment. The Employer rejects the Worker's claim, arguing that the Worker's rate of pay has been properly calculated and accordingly there is no requirement for its adjustment. The matter was referred to a Rights Commissioner for investigation and recommendation. On the 31st May, 2012 the Rights Commissioner issued his recommendation as follows:
"I find that an examination of the calculation is based on the 39 gross hour week for full time staff and her 27.5 gross hour part time post. I therefore find that the employer has a well-established method and they are comparing like with like.
I find that this part of the claim is not well-founded and that it should fail.
I recommend that this claim should fail".
On the 15th June, 2012 the Worker appealed the Rights Commissioners Recommendation to the Labour Court in accordance with Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 28th August, 2012.
3. 1. The Union contends that the Worker receives an incorrect rate of pay and is seeking an adjusted amount from her Employer.
4. 1. The Employer maintains that the Worker's rate of pay is properly calculated in accordance with an established method.
- Two issues were referred to the Rights Commissioner, namely, the payment of increments and the pro-rata calculation of the Claimant’s hourly rate. The Union appealed against the Rights Commissioner’s Recommendation on both issues.
At the commencement of the hearing the Union told the Court that the Claimant was not pursuing her claim for the payment of increments. She was however pursuing her claim that her rate was being incorrectly calculated.
The Claimant salary is based on a 27.5 hour week inclusive of meal breaks. Full-time equivalent staff are paid on the basis of a 39 hour week inclusive of meal breaks. The Court is satisfied that the Claimant’s salary in calculated on the basis of dividing the full time salary by 39 and multiplying the result by 27.5.
That resulting figure corresponds to a correct method of calculating the Claimant’s salary pro-rata to that of a full-time worker.
In these circumstances the appeal is disallowed and the recommendation of the Rights Commissioner is affirmed.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
3rd September 2012______________________
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Sharon Cahill, Court Secretary.