FULL RECOMMENDATION
SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : BILFINGER HSG FACILITY MANGEMENT LTD (REPRESENTED BY MSS) - AND - NORMA GRAY (REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Foley Employer Member: Ms Doyle Worker Member: Ms O'Donnell |
1. Appeal Of Adjudication Officer Recommendation Reference No. ADJ-00000715
BACKGROUND:
2. This case concerns a claim that the worker be paid equal pay for equal work.
The matter was referred to an Adjudication Officer for investigation and decision. On 15 June 2016 the Adjudication Officer issued the following decision:-
" I have reviewed the evidence present at the hearing and note that 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....
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."
The Employer appealed the Adjudication Officer's Decision to the Labour Court on 20 July 2016 in accordance with Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969.
A Labour Court hearing took place on 16 November 2016.
UNION’S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1.The worker asserts that she is being unfairly treated by her employer.
- 2. The worker says that her colleagues are on a significantly higher rate of pay for the same duties.
3. The worker has raised the issue several times with local and other management but has never received any response.
4 1. The rate of pay is in line with rates set by the Joint Labour Committee for the Contract Cleaning Industry by way of an ERO and this is the standard rate of pay applicable throughout the industry.
2. The employee transferred into the Company under their Terms and Conditions of Employment on the date of transfer. Other employees have transferred into the Company on different terms.
3. The Company maintain that this is standard practice within the industry.
DECISION:
This case comes before the Court by way of an appeal of a decision of an Adjudication Officer. The Adjudication Officer noted that the Respondent had advanced reasonable justification for the difference between the rate of pay of the Claimant and that of her colleagues. The Adjudication Officer recommended however that the parties should engage to agree a mechanism to enhance the Claimant’s income.
The Court has considered the written and oral submissions of the parties. The Court notes that the pay rates applying to certain staff reflect the obligations on the Respondent arising from the operation of the Transfer of Undertakings European Communities (Protection of Employees on Transfer of Undertakings) Regulations 2003. The Court acknowledges that the nature of the contracting industry is such that the transfer of staff from one employer to another can produce differentials in rates of pay. In this employment the employer has effectively ‘red-circled’ certain employees on higher rates of pay who transferred to the employment as a result of transfer of undertakings. The Court accepts the employer’s practice in this regard as reasonable.
The Court recommends that the Claimant accept that the employer is justified in applying different ‘red circled’ rates of pay to colleagues who have transferred to the employment as a result of a transfer of undertakings.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Foley
10th February, 2016______________________
CCChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Ceola Cronin, Court Secretary.