Worker

Employer

Anonymised Parties

A Worker

A Development Association

Representatives

Dermot o loughlin Alpha Employment Representation Services

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 - 00006425

25/02/2026

The Worker stated that she has suffered a significant loss of earnings because incremental progression ceased in 2010 and because she did not receive the full benefit of the pay restoration arrangements subsequently afforded to other employees within the organisation.

The Worker stated that she commenced employment with the Employer in November 2007, initially through a Community Employment scheme before taking up a temporary Childcare Worker position in October 2008 at Point 2 of the applicable salary scale.

The Worker contends that, under the normal operation of the incremental salary system, she would have progressed annually through the scale and, allowing for the period during which increments were frozen, should have reached the maximum point of the scale by approximately 2018.

The Worker stated that she remains substantially below the top of the scale and estimates that this has resulted in a significant ongoing loss of earnings.

The Worker asserted that the suspension of increments in 2010 effectively halted her progression through the salary scale and that no mechanism has subsequently been put in place to restore the lost incremental advancement. While general national pay increases have been applied, she stated that these increases have not addressed the underlying issue, namely that she has remained at a much lower point of the scale than she would have occupied had normal incremental progression continued.

The Worker further stated that pay restoration measures were introduced for many Section 39 employees following the FEMPI-era reductions. She maintained that while other employees benefited fully from these arrangements, she received only a partial benefit. She stated that only 50% of her role was included in the pay restoration process and that this has left her in a substantially less favourable salary position than would otherwise have been the case.

Accordingly, the Worker seeks recognition of the loss arising from the absence of incremental progression and from her partial exclusion from the pay restoration arrangements.

The Employer stated that, following the financial crisis in 2010, salaries across the organisation were reduced and increments were frozen for all employees in line with sector-wide measures then in force. The Employer stated that increments have never been reinstated within the organisation and that no employee has benefited from normal annual incremental progression since that time.

The Employer stated that the Worker's original role was funded through a different body and that, when that funding ceased, considerable efforts were made to preserve her employment. The Employer subsequently secured funding for a new Family Support role, for which the Worker successfully competed in 2020.

The Employer stated that when a pay restoration process was introduced for certain publicly-funded workers in late 2020, eligibility was governed by strict rules and timelines. The Employer submitted that because the Worker's newly-created role did not fully meet the criteria established under the restoration process, only 50% of her salary was capable of being assessed. The Employer stated that it successfully negotiated that partial inclusion on her behalf, resulting in her placement on a higher point of the applicable scale.

The Employer maintained that the Worker's position arises from funding arrangements and eligibility criteria outside its control. It further stated that it is a grant-funded organisation operating within strict funding parameters and cannot independently introduce increments, restore salary progression or increase salaries beyond approved funding provisions.

While acknowledging the Worker's dissatisfaction with her current salary position, the Employer maintained that it has made every reasonable effort to address the matter within the limits of the funding arrangements applicable to her role.

Having considered the submissions of both parties, I note that the issue in dispute is the Worker's salary position relative to colleagues performing comparable work within the organisation, specifically her partial exclusion from the 2021 pay restoration process afforded more fully to other employees.

The Employer accepts that the Worker did not receive the full benefit of that restoration and attributes this to the particular funding arrangements and eligibility criteria applicable to her role. I accept that this disparity arose from the operation of those funding mechanisms rather than from any decision consciously taken by local management. I also accept the Employer's evidence that it actively sought to secure inclusion for the Worker within the restoration process and succeeded in obtaining a partial restoration on her behalf.

I am satisfied that the Employer has taken reasonable steps to address the position at local level and that the remaining issue arises from factors outside its direct control.

Notwithstanding this, I find that the Worker, who has given some eighteen years of service and performs work of equivalent value to colleagues within the same organisation, continues to be at a material salary disadvantage. I find that she has suffered, and continues to suffer, an ongoing financial disadvantage through no fault of her own.

I further find that the disparity is unrelated to the Worker's duties, responsibilities or performance and instead arises from the limitations of the pay restoration process. While I accept that the Employer bears no responsibility for the creation of that disparity, I do not consider it satisfactory that the position should remain unresolved indefinitely.