Worker

Employer

Anonymised Parties

An Employee

An Employer

Representatives

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 - 00004582

25/06/2025

The Worker referred her dispute to the Workplace Relations Commission (hereinafter referred to as “the WRC”) on the 25th June 2025.

The Worker contends that on her return to employment with the Employer in June 2024 she was incorrectly placed on the lowest point of the four-year pay scale applicable to her role (hereinafter referred to as “XXX”). While she accepts that an agreement exists providing for the placement of returning XXX with prior service on a truncated four-year scale, she submits that a number of other XXX who returned to employment and who perform the same duties were placed on the top point of the scale.

The Worker maintains that these employees are fully interchangeable with her and that it is inequitable that she alone remains on a lower point of the pay scale. On this basis, she seeks to be placed on the top point of the relevant pay scale and to be compensated for the cumulative difference in pay arising from her current placement.

The Employer submits that the Worker was placed on the correct point of the correct pay scale in accordance with a Employer Company/Union Agreement concluded in 2020. That Agreement provides that XXX with any prior service, whether continuous or broken, prior to August 2019 are placed on the four-year pay scale on re-engagement, while XXX with no such prior service are placed on the seven-year scale.

The Employer accepts that a very small number of returning XXX were placed on a higher point of the four-year scale; however, it submits that these placements were made in error and were not in accordance with the Agreement. Once identified, the Agreement was applied as intended and the error was not repeated. The Employer submits that an error made in respect of other employees does not give rise to an entitlement to depart from the agreed pay structure and that to do so would undermine the collective agreement.

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

Having considered the submissions of both parties, I note that this dispute concerns the point of the pay scale, and consequently the rate of pay, at which the Worker was placed on her return to employment with the Employer in June 2024.

I note the Worker’s circumstances in relation to her earlier departure from the organisation and the disappointment she expressed regarding her pay placement on re-engagement. I also note that the Worker pursued the matter through the agreed grievance procedure with the assistance of her trade union. I further acknowledge the personal impact the matter has had on the Worker.

However, I am satisfied that, at the time the Worker accepted the offer of re-employment, she was issued with a contract of employment which clearly set out the applicable rate of pay, corresponding to Year 1 of the four-year pay scale. I further note that the Worker signed that contract and commenced employment on that basis, and that she was aware at that time of the point on the pay scale at which she was placed.

It is not in dispute that a Company/Union Agreement concluded in 2020 governed the pay treatment of returning XXX with prior service. That Agreement provides that XXX with any service, whether continuous or broken, prior to August 2019 are placed on the four-year pay scale on re-engagement. I am satisfied that this Agreement was applicable to the Worker and was correctly applied in her case.

I have considered the Worker’s submission that a small number of other XXX were placed on a higher point of the four-year scale on their return. I accept the Employer’s evidence that these placements were made in error and were not in accordance with the Agreement. I further accept that the error was identified when it was brought to management’s attention by the Worker and her trade union. In these circumstances, I am satisfied that such errors do not give rise to an entitlement to depart from the agreed pay structure.

While I acknowledge the Worker’s disappointment with the outcome and her contention that she has been treated less favourably than other employees and while I sympathise with the Worker, I am satisfied that her rate of pay on re-engagement was known to her in advance, was contractually agreed, and was determined in accordance with the applicable Company/Union Agreement. In those circumstances, sympathy or a perception of unfairness cannot justify a recommendation that would contradict the clear terms of a collectively agreed arrangement which was known to and accepted by the Worker at the time of her re-engagement.

Accordingly, I am satisfied that the Employer acted in accordance with the applicable Agreement, and I do not recommend in favour of the Worker.