FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : POWEROHM LIMITED (REPRESENTED BY FLANAGAN & CO. SOLICITORS) - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY TECHNICAL, ENGINEERING AND ELECTRICAL UNION) DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Grier Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Rate of pay.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Union's claim is that the Company has refused to pay the claimant the appropriate rate of pay as paid to other electricians doing similar work in the Company.
The worker, who is Polish, commenced employment in November, 2004. He was given two temporary contracts until August, 2005, when he was given a permanent job on a rate of €540 per week (€13.50 - €13.80 per hour). The Union claims that other electricians were paid €17 per hour and lead electricians €20 per hour. The Union met with the Company to resolve the issue. The Company's case is that the worker did not provide verification of his qualifications and, as such, it can only pay him for the work done.
The case was referred to the Labour Relations Commission and a conciliation conference took place. As the parties did not reach agreement, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 1st of June, 2006, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 12th of July, 2006 in Limerick.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. It is clear that the worker has been underpaid since he commenced employment in November, 2004. This is also the view of his co-workers. He was hired by the Company as an electrician.
2. The Union believes that the worker was intimidated in signing a letter which tried to exclude the Union from protecting his position.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. Despite repeated requests from the Company, the worker has refused to supply details of his qualification as an electrician.
2. Since commencement, the worker has received a number of pay increases to his current rate of €13.50 per hour. He is currently engaged in assembly and electrical work which is reflective of his current pay.
RECOMMENDATION:
The case before the Court refers to the Union’s claim that the claimant has not being paid the appropriate rates in line with other electricians doing similar work within the Company.
The Company submitted to the Court that his qualifications, obtained in Poland, did not merit the full electrician's rate and that his pay increases since commencement were commensurate with his known qualification and level of skill.
Having considered the views of the parties expressed in their oral and written submissions, the Court is satisfied that the work carried out by the claimant is similar to that carried out by the other electricians employed. Therefore, the Court accepts the merits of the Union’s claim and recommends that his rate of pay should be increased to the rate which applies to other electricians, backdated to the date he commenced employment with the Company.
The Court notes the difficulties surrounding the Company’s attempts to attain verification of the claimant’s qualifications and does not accept the allegation that the Company was unfair in its treatment of the claimant as a non-national worker.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
31st July, 2006______________________
CON/EWDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Ciaran O'Neill, Court Secretary.