ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION

Adjudication Decision Reference: ADJ-00000715

Complaint(s)/Dispute(s) for Resolution:

Date of Adjudication Hearing: 02/03/2016

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Emer O'Shea

Procedure:

In accordance with Section 41(4) of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 [and/or Section 8(1B) of the Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977, and/or Section 9 of the Protection of Employees (Employers’ Insolvency) Act, 1984, and/or Section 79 of the Employment Equality Act, 1998, and/or Section 25 of the Equal Status Act, 2000] following the referral of the complaint(s)/dispute(s) to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaint(s)/dispute(s) and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaint(s)/dispute(s). 

Complainant’s Submission and Presentation:

The claimant is currently in receipt of €9.75 per hour for her work as a Cleaner/Canteen Assistant and is aggrieved that her colleagues are on a significantly higher rate of pay for the same duties. In 2013, the claimant took on additional hours and since then has carried out a role equivalent in value to the role of her colleagues but at a much reduced rate. Her colleagues received €12.65 per hour for the same work. She asserted that she was always asked first to do overtime and considers it most unfair that she is paid 30% less than her colleagues.

Respondent’s Submission and Presentation:

The respondent’s representative stated that the claimant initially commenced on 17.5hours per week and had her hours increased to 29 hours per week in 2013 to cover for another colleague. She explained that the reason the claimant’s colleagues were in receipt of the higher rate was because they were former employees of company A and when the respondent took over the business from that company , the workers terms and conditions including their rates of pay were preserved in accordance with TUPE provisions. It was submitted that the claimant was in receipt of the going rate for the job, that the company were observing the terms of the ERO but were not in a position to digress from same. The respondent indicated that they could explore the possibility of additional hours for the claimant but could not increase the basis rate of pay of €€9.75 per hour.

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:

The claimant’s rate of pay

Legislation involved and requirements of legislation:

Industrial Relations Acts 1969-1990

Recommendation

I have reviewed the evidence presented at the hearing and note the respondent is observing the terms of the ERO and has advanced reasonable justification for the difference in the rates of pay between the claimant and her colleagues. Notwithstanding this, I accept that the claimant perceives this as unjust and unfair – I recommend that the parties engage in further discussion with a view to agreeing on a mechanism to enhance the claimant’s income on a phased basis into the future.

Dated:  15/06/2016