FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : COMMISSIONERS OF IRISH LIGHTS T/A LIGHTHOUSE SERVICE - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY PSEU) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Foley Employer Member: Ms Cryan Worker Member: Ms O'Donnell |
1. Appeal of Recommendation of a Rights Commissioner R-151084-Ir-14/Jt
BACKGROUND:
2. This case is an appeal by the worker of Rights Commissioner Recommendation No: r-151084-ir-14/JT. The claimant sought alignment of his rate of pay with that of a named comparator who carries out the same role and duties. Both are Monitoring and Support Officers with the Commissioners of Irish Lights (the respondent). The Matter was referred to the Rights Commissioner for investigation. A Recommendation issued on the 20thJuly, 2015. The Rights Commissioner did not find the claim well founded and it failed. On the 12 August 2015, the worker appealed the Rights Commissioner’s Recommendation in accordance with Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour court hearing took place on the 20thNovember, 2015.
UNION'S ARGUMENT:
3 1The Claimant is carrying out an identical role to that of a named comparator. The claimant’s rate of pay is significantly less than that of the comparator. The claimant seeks to have his pay aligned with that of the comparator. The claimant referred to a process of arbitration in 2011 on this matter which appeared to the claimant to reject his claim on the basis that the role carried out by the claimant was different to that of the comparator.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENT:
4 1The respondent accepted that the claimant and the comparator now carry out identical roles. The respondent asserted to the Court that the rates of pay of the claimant and the comparator reflect the rates attaching to roles previously occupied by both individuals and that their current role represents the outcome of a re-structuring which was completed in 2013. A situation where staff carry out identical roles at different rates of pay is not unique to the claimant and comparator but is a feature of other areas in the respondent company following the 2013 restructuring. The respondent stated that a job evaluation / sizing exercise is under way and is due for completion shortly. The respondent stated that following on from that exercise it would seek to engage with Trade Unions to address the question of pay structure. The respondent stated that an element of that exercise will be focussed on addressing the migration of existing job holders to the pay structure.
DECISION:
The Court has carefully considered the submissions of the parties and the points made at the hearing. The Court believes that the situation the claimant finds himself in is not satisfactory. The Court is however aware that an agreed process is in place to address pay structures in the respondent company. Specifically a job evaluation process is due for completion very shortly. That process is agreed to be followed by an engagement between the parties which will include an engagement to address the migration of staff to any new pay structure. The respondent has advised the Court of its objective to conclude these engagements by mid-2016.
The Court recommends that the parties should ensure that the process of engagement arising from completion of the job evaluation exercise should take place as soon as possible. Both parties should make every effort to achieve resolution and agreement by mid-2016. The Court understands that any agreed outcome to these engagements will address the migration of the claimant and comparator to the pay structure as it will apply to the role of Monitoring and Support Officer.
The Rights Commissioner’s recommendation is varied accordingly.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Foley
30th November 2015______________________
HTDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Helen Tobin, Court Secretary.