ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION

Adjudication Decision Reference: ADJ-00000200

Complaint for Resolution:  

Date of Adjudication Hearing: 26/01/2016

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Pat Brady

Procedure:

In accordance with Section 41(4) of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 following the referral of the complaintto me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaint and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaint  

Summary of Complainant’s Submission:

The complainant gave evidence that she commenced employment with the Respondent on 13^th September 2010 in its North Dublin city facility. She was employed on the National Minimum Wage of €8.65 for twenty hours a week.

In 2013 she was transferred to a nearby facility operated by the company and while her starting and finishing times were one hour later she retained her twenty hours per week. However, while she had a specific assignment in the previous location in her new location she describes her role as a ‘floater’ i.e. providing cover for meal and other breaks because there were insufficient hours to give her a more regular role.

She stressed that this was not by her choice but at the behest of the employer.

Her initial contract of employment stated that salaries would be reviewed on an annual basis but the first review did not take place until February 2015 when she was given an increase of €0.30 per hour but was given no indication as to how the increases came to be calculated.

In due course she learned that colleagues also got increases which were in excess of hers; in their case of approximately €0.50 per hour. While initially happy with the increase she became dissatisfied on learning of this variation and raised it with the company management. She did not get what she regarded as a satisfactory response.

She was told by a Director (AB) that ‘pay rises were determined by taking into account the roles being carried out by staff in the crèche.

Her complaint is that she was paid less than a named fulltime staff member (AW) and that this also was related to her status as a ‘floating’ employee.

Respondent’s Submission and Presentation:

In its response the company said that it had increased certain salaries by reference to two criteria; one was to lift certain employees off the basic national minimum wage and the second was related to, or based on the nature of the roles they performed.

The company denied that the distinction between part time and full time status had any bearing on this.

In its evidence it stated that the comparator (AW) had higher responsibilities than the complainant; she was regarded as a ’key’ worker with responsibilities for curriculum planning, room layout, and she was flexible in relation to the total number of hours she could work.

It also submitted detail on named employees which showed that, among part time employees the rate of increase varied in a range between 2.7%, 2.9%, 3.5%, 4.% and 5.8% which it submitted reflected the application of the criteria outlined earlier; viz to move an employee off the minimum wage and to reflect their level of responsibility.

It also produced a detailed list of full time employees (approximately sixty) from all its branches, but including the two in which the complainant had worked showing full time employees who did not receive any increase.

Decision:

Section 41(4) of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint(s)/dispute(s) in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act.

Issues for Decision:

While the complainant placed great emphasis on the change in her work which took place on her transfer in 2013 this is not a matter which arises under the act. The only question is that set out in the following section as to the requirements of the 2001 Act.

Legislation involved and requirements of legislation:

Under the Protection of Employees (Part Time) Work Act 2001 a complainant who is a part time worker will succeed if she can establish that she is doing the same work as the comparator, and under similar conditions, or each is interchangeable with the other in relation to the work, or if any differences are small or insignificant.

Decision:

I find that the respondent applied the pay increases to its employees independent of their status as full time or part time, and that here was diversity within both categories as to whether they got an increase, and as to what that increase was.

The complainant did not dispute the respondent’s submission in respect of those who either got or did not get increases, nor did she dispute the submission in relation to the disparity between the role of the comparator AW and her own role. (The fact that her terms of employment changed subsequent to her transfer to the new location is not relevant to my conclusion on this. If this was a matter in dispute it should have been raised at the time and in any event falls outside the ambit of the Act))

Accordingly I find that the variation in the various salary increases which were applied are not attributable to the part time status of the complainant, nor do they give rise to a claim of discriminatory treatment under Protection of Employees (Part Time) Work Act 2001 and her claim fails.

Therefore I dismiss the complaint.

Dated:  23^rd February 2016