FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : PENNEYS (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY MANDATE) DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Doherty Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Appeal of a Rights Commissioner's Recommendation R-066788-Ir-08
BACKGROUND:
2. The issue before the Court concerns an appeal of a Rights Commissioner's Recommendation No. R-066788-IR-08. The Union disputes the rate of pay of its member with regard to the role and duties she performs. The claimant has been employed with the Company since February, 1982 originally on a part-time basis but became full-time in March, 1985. In October, 1985 she was appointed to the position of Store Supervisor. It is the Union's claim that the worker has made representations to Management regarding her pay from as far back as 1996. She was aware that store supervisors in other outlets were in receipt of a higher rate of pay than her. In 2008 the claimant was assigned to working on the Company's pay roll. It is at this time she noticed that the Company had recorded her hourly rate of pay at €15.08 when she was at that time in receipt of €13.76 per hour. The Company subsequently increased the claimant's hourly rate of pay to 7.5% above the Sales Assistant maximum. The Company contends that there is no specific rate for supervisors across its stores. The Union are seeking that she be paid at the recorded rate of €15.08 and compensation is awarded in recognition of the years she worked as store supervisor.
The matter was referred to the Rights Commissioner for investigation and recommendation. On the 9th January, 2009 the Rights Commissioner issued his recommendation as follow:
"I am satisfied that the claimant's current pay rate at 7.5% above the maximum point of the sales assistant scale is in line with the overwhelming majority of her supervisor colleagues, that it is the appropriate rate and that it is fair and reasonable to her, accordingly that element of her claim is rejected.
In relation to the question of compensation, I recommend that the employer pay her the sum of €1,200.00 in full and final settlement of the matter."
On the 6th February, 2009 the Company appealed the Rights Commissioner's Recommendation to the Labour Court in accordance with Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 25th August, 2010.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1 The claimant and the Company were fully aware of other Store Supervisors receiving a much higher rate of pay than the claimant was actually receiving. When the Company were informed by the claimant of this fact it failed to act in such a way as to ameliorate the claimant.
2 The Company recorded on its pay roll system a much higher rate of pay than the claimant was actually receiving. This suggests that she should be receiving a higher rate of pay.
3 The Company's offer of compensation regarding back pay falls was insufficient and well short of the claimant's expectations.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1 There is no single pay rate for supervisors. The Company cannot accept that any particular Supervisor in another location could be a viable comparator.
2 The Claimant's rate of pay was increased to give her a 7.5% differential over the maximum point of the sales assistant scale.
3 The Company was willing to offer a lump sum payment as a goodwill gesture. The Company believes it made reasonable efforts to resolve this claim.
DECISION:
This is an appeal by the Union on behalf of an employee of a Rights Commissioner's Recommendation.
The matter before the Rights Commissioner's concerned the claimant's rate of pay which she disputed had been incorrectly paid since she was appointed as supervisor in 1985. The Rights Commissioner found the claimant's rate of pay since March 2008 at 7.5% above the maximum point of the Sales Assistant scale was the appropriate rate for her grade. In relation to a claim for retrospection the Rights Commissioner recommended that the employer pay her the sum of €1,200.00 in full and final settlement of her claim.
Having considered all aspects of the appeal, the Court concurs with the Rights Commissioner's findings that the claimant is currently paid the appropriate rate of pay for her grade, however, the Court is of the view that in all the circumstances of this case the recommended sum of €1,200.00 compensation should be increased to €2,000.00 in full and final settlement of her claim.
The Court varies the Rights Commissioner's Recommendation accordingly.
The Court so decides.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
15th September,2010______________________
DNDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to David P Noonan, Court Secretary.