FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : QUALITY HEALTHCARE (SHANAKIEL) LTD (REPRESENTED BY THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS CONFEDERATION) - AND - BRENDA PEYTON (REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Ms Doyle Worker Member: Mr Shanahan |
1. Back pay
BACKGROUND:
2. The case concerns a claim for the payment of €9,158.50 back pay due to the promotion of the Claimant.
The Employer's position is that the Hospital pays a range of rates for their Employees and submits that there is no reasonable basis on which any award of back pay should be made, under normal industrial relations principle.
On the 16th February 2012, the Worker referred the dispute to the Labour Court in accordance with Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969 and agreed to be bound by the Court's Recommendation.
A Labour Court hearing took place on the 13th March 2012.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Claimant was working as a Breakfast Cook for the Employer and was asked to apply for the post of Nursing Assistant. She was successful and in October 2005 she received a new contract with the job title of Catering and Nursing Assistant.
2. The Claimant had four colleagues who had less service than her. They were doing the same duties of the Claimant but they were paid a higher hourly rate of pay.
3. It was only in February 2010, following a pay cut, that the Claimant realised she was not on the same rate of pay as her colleagues. The Employer brought her pay into line with her colleagues but would not pay the appropriate retrospection.
EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. In April 2008, the Claimant asked the Employer if she could work solely as a Care Assistant. This was approved and a new hourly rate of pay was agreed.
2. In December 2009, following discussions with staff the Employer was forced to implement pay cuts of 4% for those earning less than €16 per hour and 5% for those earning more than €16 per hour.
3. In March 2010, the Claimant approached the CEO with a grievance regarding her hourly rate of pay and that of her colleagues. The CEO took immediate action, and reversed the pay cut and increased her pay to that of her colleagues. No claim for back pay was made at that time.
RECOMMENDATION:
Having regard to all the circumstances of this case the Court recommends that the Claimant be paid retrospection from the effective date of the pay adjustment back to 1stFebruary 2010.
This should be accepted by the Claimant in full and final settlement of all claims against the employer in relation to her rate of pay.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
CR______________________
27th March, 2013.Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Ciaran Roche, Court Secretary.