FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : NOVUM (OVERSEAS) LTD - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Haugh Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Mr Shanahan |
1. Restoration of differential
BACKGROUND:
2. This case concerns a dispute between the Company and Union in relation to the restoration of a pay differential. The Union contends that the three claimants were paid at a lower rate of pay than a colleague within the same grade. The Union further contends that a reduction in earnings of the other worker to align the rates of pay and subsequent payment of compensation for the reduction resulted in further losses to the three claimants. The Union is seeking compensation in relation to the period of time that the differential existed between the three claimants and their colleague and a further payment in respect of the compensation paid.
Management's position is that the agreed pay rates have been restored since December 2015 and that the differential no longer exists. Management does not accept the Union's claim as presented on the basis that the workers in question did not suffer a loss and the matter has now been rectified.
The dispute was not resolved at local level and was the subject of a conciliation conference under the auspices of the Workplace Relations Commission. As agreement was not reached the matter was referred to the Labour Court on 21st December 2015 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on 28th January 2015.
UNION'S ARGUMENT:
3 1 The collectively agreed pay rates have now been restored. The Union's claim relates to the payment of compensation for the period of time when the three Claimants were in receipt of a lower rate of pay than their colleague and a further payment in relation to compensation that was paid to him for the reduction in his pay which re-aligned the pay rates for all. The Union considers the claim as fair and reasonable as the claimants should not have been placed at a disadvantage in respect of agreed pay rates.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENT:
4 1 Management does not accept that compensation should be paid to the Claimants in this case as they had suffered no loss.The discrepancy arose as the other worker was incorrectly paid at a higher rate of pay than the three claimants which was subsequently rectified with effect from December 2015. In the circumstances Management contends that it acted appropriately and in good faith at all times.
RECOMMENDATION:
This matter was referred to the Court following an unsuccessful conciliation conference under the auspices of the Workplace Relations Commission. The issue in dispute between the parties is the subject of an earlier recommendation of the Court – LCR19991 - dated 27 January 2011.
In the aforementioned recommendation, the Court stated: “Accordingly, the Court recommends that the matter be addressed and the collectively agreed pay rates be restored to the Lead-hand grade at the next adjustment to pay levels, howsoever this comes about.” The recommendation was accepted by both parties.
The parties agree that the collectively agreed pay rates have been restored across the Lead-hand grade with effect from 16 December 2015. However, the Union’s position is that the restoration was not implemented in accordance with the terms of LCR19991 i.e. on the occasion of the first adjustment to pay levels in the respondent company following the date of the Court’s recommendation. The pay adjustment in question was applied on 1 July 2014.
The Court upholds the Union’s complaint and recommends that the Respondent pay to a registered charity/registered charities of the claimants’ choosing, as nominated on their behalf by the Union, the sum of €4,500.00.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Alan Haugh
18th February 2016______________________
AHDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Andrew Heavey, Court Secretary.