Worker

Employer

Anonymised Parties

A Worker

An Employer

Representatives

Tom Fitzgerald Unite the Union

Aisling McDevitt Ibec West

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 - 00004370

27/05/2025

The Worker referred a dispute concerning pay parity with the Team Leader role. The Employer raised a preliminary objection to jurisdiction and submitted that the matters complained of form part of an ongoing collective dispute between the Employer and the Union, currently before the Conciliation Service of the Workplace Relations Commission.

The Worker has been employed by the Respondent since 2015. The worker was a charge hand in departments 910 and 935 since 2015. The Charge hand role was renamed to that of Flow Cell Leader whilst he held the position. The worker is very experienced in this role having carried out the duties for in excess of 10 years.

In 2020 he was asked to change his role from Flow Cell Leader to Robotic Cell Leader. As part of this role, he went to college to study advanced robotics. It was a 2 years course in ATU.  In addition to that he completed the TLDP 10 week course with A3 problem solving training with the Respondent.

He was appointed to the position of Temporary Robotic Cell Leader in June 2020. The rate of pay was Grade 8+10%.

The operations’ manager held discussions with Flow Cell Leaders/Charge hands to deliberate on the Team Leader role. A pay increase was agreed for this role. The role was advertised. The Worker applied. He was not successful. The current job evaluation system does not recognise job responsibility beyond Grade 8 + 10%. That needs to be reviewed.

As stated, the Worker applied for the Team Lead position, but he was unsuccessful. In reality, his current position has the same duties and responsibilities as the Team Leaders. It is because of that, he is seeking pay parity for his role. The Respondent’s refusal to recognise this is discriminatory

A grievance was raised in relation to the issue in 2024. That process has been exhausted without a positive outcome for the Worker.

The Respondent is not arguing that the Adjudicator does not have jurisdiction to hear this dispute due to it being part of a collective grievance. There are a number of points that go to show that the matter before the adjudicator today is not part of a collective process and as such there is no reason as to why the matter cannot proceed to hearing.

1.      The establishment of the new role “team lead” deviated from the normal practise to the determent of the worker. Had the normal process been followed that could have been avoided. There is no dispute about that.

2.      There is a grievance before the WRC. As part of that it is argued that the employer should amend the evaluation process because it only goes as far as grade 8 + 10%.

3.      The worker is essentially carrying out the new role in any event.

4.      The Employer did not have any objection to how the Worker progressed his dispute until today.  

The Respondent representative argues that his matter is part of a collective pay agreement and as such the WRC does not have jurisdiction to hear it.

The recruitment process for this particular claim was in the production unit. The Respondent has a pro shop agreement with the union and as part of that agreement there is a collective agreement known as “the yellow book”. Within the yellow book in Section 1.4   it states “The parties to this Agreement recognise the difficulties in developing and maintaining a manufacturing facility. The Union recognises that the Company maintains the sole and exclusive right to manage its business in such a manner as the Company shall determine, subject only to those provisions of this Agreement, which expressly qualifies this right.  The Company’s right to manage its business shall include but not be limited to it rights to:     

-        To determine the methods and means by which its operations are to be carried out.

-        To continuously take all reasonable steps necessary to achieve efficient production and improve productivity.

-        To subcontract on a temporary basis.

-        To manage load to relocate.

-        To introduce new technology

-        To discontinue any portion of such operations.

-        To assign work.

-        To establish new job grades.

-        To specify work shifts.

-        To schedule hours of work including over-time.

-        To establish the size, composition and qualifications of the work force.

-        To establish and administer employee production requirements and rates of pay.

-         To lay off employees in accordance with the Minimum Notice and Terms of Employment Acts 1991/Redundancy Payments Act

-        To establish and administer employee benefits.

-         To maintain safety, efficiency and order in the plant.

-         To consult and communicate with employees on all work related matters. 

It is further understood and agreed that all rights, power and authority which the Company had prior to the signing of this Agreement are retained by the Company, except those specifically limited by this Agreement.  The Company recognises the Union’s right to represent its members on all matters covered by this Agreement, including pay, conditions and security of employment.

As can be seen from the agreement, The company has the right to establish a new grade..

The company has established a new grade “the team leader” grade.  They held a recruitment process to fill roles within that grade. The worker competed in that process, but he was not successful. At that time, he held the position of robotic cell leader. His salary was a grade 8 + 10%. The salary for the role of team leader was grade 8 + 19%.  The union is making the argument that the Worker should have his role reevaluated under the company’s job evaluation scheme. The company’s position is that these roles were created and did not come under the category of the job re-evaluation scheme. They were filled through the recruitment process. The worker when through that process and was unsuccessful. His brother also went through the process also, but he was successful.  The worker draws comparison between his own role and that of Team Leader, however, it is worth noting that while the worker’s role focuses largely on monitoring the machine, observing its performance, troubleshooting issues and feeding back to Engineering, the Team Leader roll owns a cell and works with production workers to manage the day to day interactions on the line. Team leaders are also required to give Managing Daily Improvement updates. They also deal with quality issues and reassign work within that team. 

In this case the Worker had experience as a “Charge Hand” but wasn’t a charge hand at the material time nor is he now.  His role is not on all fours with the Team Leader role. Any assertion that there should be a broad job evaluation that would enable the worker to have his role evaluated to that of a team lead isn’t reflective of the process that the company when through to create these roles and it is a collective issue because these roles sit outside of the job evaluation process.  

There is a separated collective claim that is the subject of a collective grievance that was dealt with by the company and is currently with conciliation  service at the WRC.  Part of it covers the issue the subject matter of this claim.

“The main points of consideration to appeal to Stage 3 of the grievance procedure put forward as a collective grievance and the union are as follows:

• Our job evaluation process covers all hourly employees, this is done through a clear procedure with the management team, HR and Unite the union involved. When my job was evaluated, I scored the very top marks meaning the top rate of pay these are the same marks as Team Leader

 • The Operations Manager held discussions with Flow Cell Leaders/Chargehands to deliberate on the Team Leader role. This is against our agreements. Unite the union represents all the hourly workers and are therefore the only bargaining mechanism within Thermo King. After the decided to give them a pay rise, he meets with the union to tell them he made a deal with Flow Cell Leaders/Chargehands and stated there will be no change to their roles, that they will be putting the two roles together and changing the name, for agreeing to change the name they will get a pay rise.

 • The Team Leader role was put on the board and given to the pre-selected people this is against fair procedure. And a process should be put in place to prevent this from happening in the future. We have already been made aware of a rumour about a job that is to be created for a union member. This is extremely disheartening for any person who fails to get the job.

• We should all be put on the appropriate grade for our jobs, and it should be back dated to the same day the team leaders got their pay-rise.

 • It is important to note that the areas that the production manager wished to focus on, and used as the reason for the extra pay were already part of the Cell Flow Leader/Chargehand Job. These kinds of responsibilities are held by all 8+10 operators.

• If these jobs were truly open to everyone why would the OM meet with a select few to discuss the job and its pay before the job goes on the board.

 • Representations made by the union at Stage 3 of the grievance process advised that all hourly supervisors/managers should meet with their teams to inform them of any newly created positions that become available to allow for better communications of such opportunities. In addition, while it was acknowledged that CM did meet with union representatives in relation to these positions, and they were provided, albeit late, with the Team Leader hourly rate, union representations outlined that a robust consultation process was not followed”

The part of that grievance outcome that is specific to the issue before the WRC today states “These roles do not form part of our normal Job Evaluation process. The reason for this being, that to be successful to secure the role there firstly has to be

 a) a legitimate and active requirement for an approved Team Leader role in that area and

 b) an employee must be promoted into the position, following a fair recruitment process, in line with our existing collective agreements on all grade 5 positions and above being subject to an open competitive interview process.

 It was never the intention of the Company to create an additional grade, within the existing production grade structure, for other roles to be evaluated against. This would not be business feasible to apply and would incur significant cost inefficiencies to do so. The business, within its rights, took the decision to manage its costs in this manner, to ensure we as a Company are taking the right steps necessary to achieve efficient production in establishing these new roles. This is in line with the provisions of Section 1.4 Company’s Role, of our Union/Company Agreements (ref: yellow book).”

There is one part of the dispute before the WRC today that is in relation to delay, that specific issue is unique to him. The company accept that there was a brief delay. That delay was related to his absence on sick leave. The company was of the opinion that it was not appropriate to issue an outcome when the worker was on sick leave.

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

The Worker referred a dispute concerning pay parity with the Team Leader role. The Employer raised a preliminary objection to jurisdiction and submitted that the matters complained of form part of an ongoing collective dispute between the Employer and the Union, currently before the Conciliation Service of the Workplace Relations Commission.

The Employer submitted that the Team Leader role was created pursuant to collective agreements governing the workplace and that issues concerning grading, rates of pay, job evaluation, recruitment procedures and related matters are all encompassed within an active collective grievance process involving Unite the Union and the Employer.

The Worker submitted that his complaint was distinguishable from the collective process and concerned his individual circumstances.

I have carefully considered the submissions and documentation presented by both parties.

The central issue for determination at this preliminary stage is whether the dispute before me is properly one for investigation under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969, or whether it forms part of an extant collective industrial relations process between the parties.

Having considered the evidence presented, I am satisfied that the substance of the Worker’s claim is inextricably linked to matters currently the subject of collective negotiations and conciliation before the Workplace Relations Commission. In particular, the issues raised concerning:

• the establishment and grading of the Team Leader role,
• the applicability of the job evaluation scheme,
• rates of pay attaching to those roles,
• recruitment and appointment processes, and
• claims for parity and retrospective adjustment,

are all matters expressly encompassed within the collective grievance advanced by the Union on behalf of affected employees.

I note in particular that the collective grievance currently before conciliation includes claims that employees “should all be put on the appropriate grade for our jobs, and it should be back dated to the same day the Team Leaders got their pay-rise” together with challenges concerning the creation and evaluation of the Team Leader role. These matters substantially overlap with the dispute referred in the present complaint.

I am further satisfied that any determination or recommendation issued in this individual referral could potentially cut across, pre-empt or undermine the ongoing collective industrial relations machinery voluntarily agreed between the parties and presently being utilised through the WRC Conciliation Service.

Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969 is not intended to circumvent or duplicate active collective bargaining processes. Where a dispute is fundamentally collective in nature and forms part of an ongoing conciliation process between the parties’ industrial relations representatives, it is neither appropriate nor consistent with orderly industrial relations practice for the matter to proceed by way of an individual section 13 investigation.

Accordingly, I find that I do not have jurisdiction to investigate the substantive dispute under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969

Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969 requires that I make a recommendation in relation to the dispute.

For the reasons outlined above, I recommend that the dispute is not properly justiciable under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969, as the matters in dispute form part of an ongoing collective industrial relations process currently before the Conciliation Service of the Workplace Relations Commission.

I therefore decline jurisdiction in respect of the substantive claim.

I recommend that the dispute is not properly justiciable under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969, as the matters in dispute form part of an ongoing collective industrial relations process currently before the Conciliation Service of the Workplace Relations Commission.