Worker

Employer

Anonymised Parties

A Pharmaceutical Analyst

 A Pharma Company

Representatives

Colleen Minihane SIPTU

Sophie Crosbie IBEC

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 - 00003361

31/10/2024

On 31 October 2024, the Workers Union, SIPTU submitted a Dispute for investigation.

On 5 December 2024, the WRC confirmed an Investigation would follow.

Both Parties attended hearing on 22 August 2025, were ably represented and filed helpful submissions.

The Dispute is set in a live employment arena, where the employment relationship has been active since 4 December 2001.

The Dispute concerns pay assimilation on promotion.

The Worker commenced work in December 2001. He worked in Quality Control with frequent cross cover as a Pharma Analyst in a trio formation of Analysts.

The Dispute arose as a residual matter of pay assimilation for the worker following his formal elevation to the role of IPC analyst in January 2024. He is currently paid at a 13.5% lower differential.

Historically, the worker moved from his appointed role of Quality Control Analyst to Shift Analyst in 2003. He has cross covered the role of IPC Analyst from that time up to and including the time of his formal appointment to the role.

A 2003 Agreement linked the rate of pay for IPC analysts to Senior Production Operators by a 9.12% pay differential, applied across the trio. This endured to 2013, when 10% earnings were incorporated into base salary for the worker and the trio.

The trio of IPC Analysts were then linked for pay purposes to Senior Chargehand rate in production. The worker was not granted a pay relativity. He continued to provide locum cover for annual leave, training and weekends for the IPC Analyst since 2014.

Initially, this cross cover resembled 6% but escalated over the years to 65% of the workers time, where the worker absorbed the enhanced flexibility within his home life.

In December 2023, a vacancy arose for an IPC Analyst and the worker scoped out accession to the post.

He was informed that he would be offered the position on the existing terms and conditions of the Senior IPC Analysts on existing Agreements.

However, this was later rescinded.

The Worker raised a grievance and was supported by testament of his 21-year tenure in locum IPC work. He sought to find a mechanism to “overcome pay roll technicality “to access the umbrella IPC rate.

He was denied the pay sought due to a 2013 reference to a “red circled arrangement “at the trio stage. New appointments were to be aligned to pay based on relevant experience.

The Union asked for consideration of the workers undisputed 21 years tenure as a locum. He is working 13.5% below his assured pay rate at time of appointment.

The Union contended this was unfair to the Worker.

The Worker is seeking the Senior IPC Analyst rate from date of permanent appointment in May 2024

In closing, the Union re-emphasised the 20-year history of locum IPC role undertaken by the worker. He had an earnest desire to be recognised fairly in his pay, which he sought to reflect his commitment, and which was currently out of step.

The Employer operates a large Pharma Plant of 250 employees and has rejected the claim made.

Unions are present on site, with collective bargaining for production and craft grades. It does not have a collective agreement in place for Quality Control Analysts or the IPC Analyst grades.

The Worker commenced work as a Quality Control Analyst in 2001, moving to shift work pattern in 2003.

On 18 April 2024, the worker accepted the offer of appointment to IPC Analyst from May 6 that year. Salary €79, 390, band 25 on the Global Compensation Framework. He recorded agreement by electronic means on April 22, 2024, under protest.

Ms Crosbie for the Employer outlined the parameters of the compensation framework at hearing and confirmed that the worker had received a 10% increase in pay, the maximum permitted.

The Employer did not share the workers bid to align for pay purposes to the prior appointed IPC Analysts as they had agreed to a red circled arrangement, which comprised parity with

 “Charge hand rate of pay “

There was 1 remining beneficiary of this red circled arrangement.

“This Agreement is an individual agreement applying to the named individual only. For new appointments in the future wee will align pay with relevant experience.”

The Employer processed the grievance raised by the Worker and an outcome meeting occurred on 16 September 2024.

1 The worker was unaware of the 2014 Red Circle Agreement, with one remaining beneficiary.

2 Elevation to IPC was not reflective of the red circled arrangement.

3 The differential paid on promotion was the maximum permitted.

4 Retrospection paid 24 January 2024 – 6 May 2024 at differential in two pay scales held by the worker.

The Employer clarified that a latter appointment to a vacant IPC Analyst has been paid at band 24, based on experience.

The Employer contended that the worker had his grievance investigated and this was not upheld.

The Employer concluded that the Worker had recorded his agreement for the Analyst role on the pay offered. He was bound by that agreement.

He was not eligible to access a red circled pay scale created for the then post holders and since replaced by a reward payment for experience.

The Company was obliged to work within the parameters of their own global compensation framework and did not have approval to deviate from that framework.

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

There is a clear dispute at play here against the background of a   live employment. I have no desire to bring any further discord into what a mutually beneficial employment relationship since commencement in 2001 has undoubtedly been.

However, an impasse has followed an unsuccessful grievance.

I have listened carefully to both parties and have reflected on what I heard.

I am mindful that the parties do not have collective bargaining within the groups of Quality Control and IPC Analyst, yet the letters of comfort reflect a reference to a stated intention that new appointments to IPC Analyst grade would not sustain the pay relativity agreed in December 2013.

Can this loose phrase be viewed as an Agreement? I do not believe it can and recognise it more as a stated intention by the authors.

I acknowledge the time taken by both parties in seeking to find an informal resolution during the time allocated to hearing.

The worker has come to this case in the clear and assured belief that his contribution as locum IPC to April 2024 and since that date in his formal appointment, warrants identical pay rate to that awarded to the trio in December 2013 i.e. a pay relativity with Senior Chargehand.

 He accepts that the trio has since been reduced by life events and attrition to a sole recipient.

The Employer has come to this case in the clear and assured belief in the enduring currency of two.

“Letters of comfort “both dated 11 December 2013.

The first was directed to the Worker himself and appeared to provide a stability in his role at that time.

1 A market adjustment was applied for providing cover for IPC Analysts to €47, 856 from September 1, 2013.

2 Right to an external representative SI 146/2000 for grievance / disciplinary.

3 Corporate bonuses of 9% will be applied.

The letter was co signed by employer and worker.

The second letter of comfort was directed to a colleague IPC Analyst on the same date. I understand there were three such letters generated.

The Worker recalled they were all four workers were assembled together on that day.

The language in the second letter of comfort differed to the first created.

“Further to discussions the following agreement was reached to bring final clarity to your terms and conditions “

1 Salary aligned to charge hand rate from 1 September 2013. Annual review. Red Circle.

2 For new appointments in the future we will align pay with relevant experience.

3 external representations for matters distinct from 1 and 2 above.

4 9% bonus scheme applied.

The letter was co-signed by employer and worker.

I am satisfied that these letters have currency in Industrial Relations terms and while not a standard Collective Agreement, constitute individualised letters of comfort binding on the author and recipient.

I am being asked to consider the legitimate expectation relied on by the Worker when a locum manager assured him that he would receive the going rate for IPS Analyst. I accept that he signed the April 2024 Agreement under protest.

The utterance by the locum manager was a mistake and should be forgiven and disregarded by the worker. The world of letters of comfort is by its nature complicated and would not be universally understood by a locum manager.

 However, I appreciate there was a 4-month delay before this expectation was altered and that constitutes a double error by the employer.

I have sought to balance these mistakes by the clear opportunities already afforded to the worker through his seamless access to his promotional post and the extended opportunity to hone his skills in preparation for the post.

I respect his commitment recorded.

It is clear that there are significant career opportunities ahead for him at the business which may in time shrug off the “golden hand cuffs “of band 25, in which he has expressed a frustration.

In listening to the parties, I wondered if I could recommend a mechanism to stabilise the clear dispute between the parties?

I can see that the Employer is holding steadfast to the IPC Analyst and Charge hand pay relativity for the one remaining worker from 2013.

 I cannot find a mechanism to open this door to the worker, while one beneficiary remains and a new incumbent at IPC level is already paid less than the worker in this case. I appreciate that the worker has trained the new incumbent.

The worker cannot be recognised as a beneficiary of the second letter of comfort. I am not considering this case as a body of workers but through the sole experience of the worker.

The worker carries a regret regarding the time he spent in locum with modest financial recognition. I would let that river run on now and try to move forward to focus on opportunities ahead.

Instead, as I have found merit in this Dispute, I recommend the following course of action to the Parties to stabilise the dispute and enable the parties to move forward.

1 The Employer should compensate the Worker for the double mistake and lack of clarity at the point of entry to his position of IPC Analyst to the amount of €5,000 nett. Note changes to the IR cases in tax law.

2 The Employer should meet with the Worker and his Representative to demonstrate how his 10% pay increase was aligned “with relevant experience “within 4 weeks of this Recommendation.

3   In full and final settlement of this dispute and in recognition of the clear historical flexibility offered by the Worker, I award him an extra 3-day annual leave in the forthcoming calendar years 2026 and 2027.

 I appreciate that he has already received a partial payment in respect of past locum service in the IPC role.

Pay Assimilation on Promotion