Worker

Employer

Anonymised Parties

A Worker

A Transport Organisation

Representatives

Yvonne O' Callaghan SIPTU Trade Union

A Company Senior Manager

Act

Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969

IR - SC - 00002912

26/07/2024

The Dispute concerned the alleged removal of Paid Breaks from the Worker as a result of a change in job roles. The Worker alleged that she was offered , for the new job, a higher rate that included Paid Breaks . This was refuted by Management as an administrative mistake at the time of recruitment. The mistake was allegedly corrected which left the Worker on a lower salary with no Paid Breaks.

The Employment with the Organisation began on the 17 April 2006 and continues. The rate of pay stated, by the Worker , at the date of referral of the Dispute, was €2,050 per fortnight for 45 hour week.

The Worker was represented by SIPTU, Ms Yvonne O’Callaghan. An oral testimony was given supported by an extensive Written Submission. The summary of events was as follows.

Prior to October 30th 2022 the Worker was employed as a Search officer. An ASU, on a Salary of € 47,290

On the 30th October 2022  the Worker was appointed to the Mobility Unit AMU at a salary of €53,442

In May 2023 the Worker applied to join the XXX Unit Services Unit.

On the 3rd July 2023 the Worker reverted (from the AMU) to the ASU at what should have been a stated Salary of €50,781.

On the 20th July 2023 the Worker was appointed to the XXX Unit at an offered salary of €57,386 with a 36 hour week with paid lunch breaks -the AMU Conditions.

The Payroll Section/Recruitment Section were unaware of the Workers move back to the ASU and had based her new XXX Unit salary (with paid breaks)  on the AMU rate.

Internal processes in HR identified the issue in early September 2023 and paid the rate of €50,781 with a 40 hour week with unpaid breaks.

The essence of the Workers case was that she had been offered €57,386 but was actually paid €50,781 on a 40 hour unpaid breaks basis.

The Worker pursued the issue twice via the Internal Grievance Mechanisms but to no avail.

It was a simple issue of basic justice – a rate had been offered in writing and the Employer could not now resile from this.  Furthermore, there was another staff member in the XXX Unit Section who was allowed Paid Breaks despite the Management’s assertion that XXX Unit was an unpaid break unit.

The Worker now sought retrospection to the offered rate and an entitlement to Paid Breaks on a 36 hour week.

The Employer was represented by Senior Managers and supplied a detailed Written Submission.

The Employer has in excess of some 3,600 staff with multiple Units and Sections.

Their argument was, in essence, that a most regrettable error had occurred in July 2023 and an incorrect salary with paid breaks had been quoted/offered. It had been quickly corrected. The Organisation was fulsome in their apologies.

The Worker had exercised her rights under the Grievance Procedures and two Investigations had taken place. The Employer, while accepting that things had been badly handled , had not found in the Worker’s favour in either Grievance. The situation was ,furthermore , coved by a Collective Agreement with all Unions and to make an exception for the Worker would be in breach of the Agreement with possible “Body of Workers” unintended consequences.

The Employer had offered to re locate the Worker from her XXX Unit to a Unit where paid breaks were in operation.

In conducting my investigation, I have taken into account all relevant submissions presented to me by the parties.

This was an Industrial Relations case. Oral testimony was crucial. The Worker presented via SIPTU as a very committed and enthusiastic member of the XXX Unit Team – the VIP Passenger services Unit.

The Management was robust in their Prestation and the findings of two Grievance Processes supported their views. It had to be noted that considerable energy had gone into both Investigations with reports that were detailed and extensive.

In their closing presentations the Management was acknowledged that

“ Numerous errors and delays occurred throughout the process of moving roles. The Employer had taken note of this from a learning , employee experience and continuous improvement perspective”.

From a Staff Development/Human Resources point of view and especially as regards a dedicated XXX Unit  “High Value” Customer Facing Staff member ,the Worker merits some ex gratia compensation for the confusions that surrounded her case.

The Adjudication Officer was satisfied with her credibility and that she was not pursuing a spurious case in the hope of some inappropriate reward.

Accordingly, it is to be recommended  , in the light of all the circumstances,  that an ex gratia “red circled” Compensation award be made to her.

Compensation, Administrative errors.