FULL RECOMMENDATION
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : IRISH RAIL (REPRESENTED BY IRISH RAIL) - AND - A WORKER DIVISION : Chairman: Ms O'Donnell Employer Member: Mr Marie Worker Member: Ms Treacy |
1. Rate of Pay following promotion.
BACKGROUND:
2. This dispute could not be resolved at local level and was the subject of a Conciliation Conference under the auspices of the Workplace Relations Commission. As agreement was not reached, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on 6 August 2019 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on 15 November 2019.
WORKER ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Worker is requesting the same package which his predecessor enjoyed with full retrospection to 8 December 2017.
2. In comparison with the previous incumbent the Worker states he is at a very serious disadvantage and at an even greater disadvantage to what was being offered to another individual back in 2013.
3. The Worker contends that the Company has not given a reasonable explanation for this difference, as there is no reasonable explanation.
EMPLOYER ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company has strong concerns regarding the implications of a positive finding in this case.
2. There is a risk that it could lead to further claims for pay increases by other managers.
3. It would also create an unwelcome precedent in relation to the autonomy of the company to make decisions relating to salary levels at senior levels.
RECOMMENDATION:
The issue in dispute relates to the appointment of the Worker to his current post. At the time of appointment, the Worker was advised that there would be no immediate increase in salary although this position had always attracted a higher pay and benefits package. It was the Worker’s understanding that the issue of the benefits package would be addressed at some time in the future. In March 2018, the Worker received a 5.05% increase in his existing salary and was advised that this was the new rate for the position he held. It is the Worker’s case that it was never his understanding that he was taking on the higher role and responsibilities for such a small increase. The amount of the increase was never discussed and was just applied to his wages.
It is the Employers submission that the facts as set out by the Worker in terms of when he took up the post are correct. However ,in March 2018 a decision was taken by the then CEO to only make a small increase to the existing salary rather than restoring the original higher pay and benefits package. The Employer accepted that there was no discussion or engagement with the Worker and that the new lower rate was presented as a “fait accompli”.
The Court having read the submissions of the parties and listened carefully to the oral submissions on the day notes that the Worker was placed on point 10 of the J21 pay scale in March 2018 and recommends that he should instead be placed on point 10 of the B96 pay scale from that date in March 2018. The Court is not recommending any change to the car allowance as part of this Recommendation. The Court makes this Recommendation in full and final settlement of the issues that were before it.
The Court so Recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Louise O'Donnell
MK______________________
3 December 2019Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Mary Kehoe, Court Secretary.