FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : MANGANS CASH AND CARRY (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr McGee Employer Member: Mr Pierce Worker Member: Mr Nash |
1. Appeal of Rights Commissioners Recommendation IR19687/04/GF.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company are involved in the cash and carry business and operate the Mace franchise in the West of Ireland. The Company employs approximately 15 people in Castlebar. The worker concerned was employed by the Company on the 1st September, 2003 as a general operative and was paid at the rate of €6.35 per hour, the adult minimum rate in operation in the Company at the time.
The worker became aware that another employee, carrying out similar duties, was receiving a higher rate of pay and he complained to management. He was led to believe that he would be brought up in line with his colleague but this did not happen.
- The issue was referred to a Rights Commissioner for investigation and recommendation. The Rights Commissioner found in favour of the Company.
- The Union appealed the recommendation to the Labour Court on the 13th December, 2004, in accordance with Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 1st September, 2005.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. There is no justifiable reason for the worker concerned to be paid at a lower rate than a colleague carrying out the same duties.
2. The Company guidelines on what rates of pay apply are unclear and there is no clarity on what level of experience is necessary. Both workers were of similar age, did similar work and both had some level of experience.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The worker did not have the required experience to justify being placed on a higher point on the pay scale.
2. The worker had his rate of pay explained to him by the Company at the recruitment interview.
3. The Company did assure the worker that his rate of pay would be increased up to the point of the scale in line with his experience.
DECISION:
The Court has considered the submissions, oral and written, of the parties in this case.
The question of comparing CV's in order to decide on what point of scale a new employee should be placed on, based on "relevant" experience, is at least, a subjective one.
While the Court does not feel that the claimant's CV/experience matched that of his comparator, nevertheless it feels that he should have started on point 2, given that the comparator started on Point 3. Point 1 should be reserved for new entrants into the workforce.
The Court decides accordingly, allows the appeal as above, and adjusts the recommendation of the Rights Commissioner. The claimant should be paid the difference between Point 1 and Point 2 for the period of his employment.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Raymond McGee
26th September, 2005______________________
MG.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Madelon Geoghegan, Court Secretary.