INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
- 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-140685-IR-13/JT.
2. The case before the Court concerns the Worker's appeal ofRights Commissioner's Recommendation R-140685-IR-13/JT. The dispute relates specifically to the Worker's claim that he was placed on the incorrect point of the salary scale when he was promoted to a higher position. The Employer rejects the Worker's claim arguing that he has been remunerated accordingly since he was promoted. The matter was referred to a Rights Commissioner for investigation and recommendation. On the 8th August, 2014 the Rights Commissioner issued his recommendation as follows:
"I have considered the submissions of both parties. The fact that the Claimant is being paid a higher hourly rate for fewer hours has distorted the promotion formula in this case. I accept the Respondent has fairly applied the promotion formula and the Claimant is not at a loss.
I do not find the claim well founded".
On the 12th September, 2014 the Union 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 5th May, 2015.
3. 1. The Union contends that the Employer failed to implement the agreed policy correctly and the Worker was placed on an incorrect salary scale.
2. The Union on behalf of its member is seeking pay parity with a named comparator.
3. The Union is seeking the retrospective application of the agreed policy and the payment of outstanding monies owing to the Worker.
4. 1. The Employer contends that the Worker has been remunerated appropriately at all times.
2. The Employer asserts that the Worker has been treated in line with agreements and with colleagues in similar situations.
3. The Employer maintains that concession of the Union's claim would potentially give rise to similar claims.
It is clear to the Court that the Claimant was treated in accordance with the memo issued in July 2003. While that memo was not formally agreed with theUnion, the Court is satisfied that its content was well known and there is no evidence to suggest that the Union ever demurred from what the memo provided.
It is noted that the claim before the Court is based entirely on the treatment of another employee who was redeployed to a similar position. That person was redeployed to the position that he now holds when his former role became surplus to requirements. He was red-circled on that account. Consequently, that person is not a valid comparator for the purpose of this claim.
In all the circumstances the Court can see no merit in this claim. Accordingly the appeal is disallowed and the recommendation of the Rights Commissioner is affirmed.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
22nd May 2015______________________
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Sharon Cahill, Court Secretary.