ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION

Adjudication Decision Reference: ADJ-00003070

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

Date of Adjudication Hearing: 22/11/2016

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 has been employed as a General operative with the respondent since July2011 and warns €406.26 per week.It was submitted that the claimant had raised the issue of the skilled rate of pay on several occasions while assigned to the hide chill job and was moved from the start rate of €9.00 per hour to the basic of €9.90 per hour.The claimant lodged a grievance with his manager on the 3^rd.Nov.2014 seeking the payment of the skilled rate but his grievance was put on hold pending the outcome of talks on a pay claim that had been submitted for all employees in 2013. A number of other employees in the Boning Hall had also complained about management’s refusal to move workers up the agreed scale – in late 2015 , a manager agreed that appraisals would recommence in the Boning Hall and a number of employees were moved up the scale.No change took place in the Slaughter Hall or Kill floor and the claimant lodged his complaint with the WRC.The general pay claim was investigated by the Labour Court and the recommended revised rates were submitted in evidence .Further exchanges ensued between the union and the employer and the union submitted that while the issue regarding the skilled rate had been resolved the effective date for implementation remained unresolved .

It was submitted that the work the claimant was doing in Hide Chill had always been graded at the skilled rate under the previous structure and continued as a skilled job under the new matrix.It was advanced that there had been no difference in the type of work carried out by the claimant from 2014 to date It was submitted that it was unfair for management to disadvantage the claimant because of their decision to freeze the existing pay structure while the pay claim was ongoing.The claimant had incurred a loss of €3,032.27 from 2014 to 23^rd.May 2016 and it was asserted that it is normal good industrial relations practise to backdate retrospection to the date the claim was lodged – in the claimants case – 3^rd.Nov.2014.

Respondent’s Submission and Presentation:

The respondent submitted that there had been no operatives within the slaughter hall , who had progressed through the pay scales since 2013 – while extensive pay negotiations were taking place.

It was submitted that the claimant’s role was previously carried out by 2 employees and was classified as unskilled.The company set out a chronology of the processing of the claimant’s grievance.It was submitted that management had investigated the claimant’s assertion that other employees had their pay raised in terms of skill pay and that it emerged that the only people who had their pay increased since 2013 were the claimant and another employee.

It was submitted that challenging pay talks had taken place with the union during a protracted period of time involving the harmonisation of the skills matrix across 4 plants and the issues were not resolved until the Labour Court recommendation was issued and accepted by both sides in May 2016.Shortly afterwards , any delayed skills pay assessments were reviewed including the claimant and an increase to the skilled rate was paid with effect from 23^rd.May 2016.Prior to this there were a set number of skilled pay rate vacancies in the company and one of these positions had to be vacated before an employee could achieve skilled pay.Issues arose because of red circling – sometimes an employee in receipt of skilled pay was no longer doing a role defined as skilled by the matrix.

The issues of red circling had now been addressed by the Labour Court and the MD had given an undertaking that in the future anyone doing a skilled role would receive the skilled rate.It was submitted that although the claimant did nt as yet meet the criteria required by the skills matrix ,he was regraded and awarded the skilled rate from May 2016.It was advanced that from 2013 – 2016 the company had processed 36 other grievances regarding regrading and the skills rate and that the matter before the adjudicator was a collective dispute.It was submitted that the issue could have been raised during Conciliation or at the Labour Court but was not and was now being raised 2 years later.It was submitted that the claimant was treated fairly and that no retrospection was appropriate.

Recommendation

I have reviewed the evidence presented at the hearing and noted the respective positions of the parties.While I acknowledge that the claimant feels aggrieved as he believes he had an entitlement to progress to the skilled rate , I have to accept that this case cannot be dealt with in isolation and is a collective matter.I found no compelling evidence was advanced to support the claimant’s contention that he was treated unfairly or indeed less fairly than his colleagues and accordingly I do not uphold the complaint.

Dated:   11^th April 2017