ADJUDICATION OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00005086

Parties:

	Complainant	Respondent
Anonymised Parties	A Laboratory Analyst	A Food Ingredients Manufacturer.

Complaint(s):

Act	Complaint/Dispute Reference No.	Date of Receipt
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969	CA-00007191-001	26/09/2016

Date of Adjudication Hearing: 09/05/2017

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Michael McEntee

Location of Hearing: Room G.02 WRC O'Brien Road Carlow

Procedure:

In accordance with Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Acts 1969 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).

1: Summary of Complainant’s Case:

The Complainant is a Laboratory Analyst in a large beverage concentrates manufacturer. – Called Respondent A. The Respondent operates an annual wages and salary review /benchmarking process. In 2016 the Respondent allowed for a headline wage increase of 2% across the board.

Individual performance qualifications, called the Merit Guidelines, were to be factored in to the decision on the final payment. The Complainant was awarded a 1% increase and this was unfair.

Applying the rationale for this reduced increase the Complainant will experience inordinate delays in ever reaching the top of his pay band and should immediately be placed on the top of his band.

2: Summary of Respondent’s Case:

The Respondent is part of a large multi-national organisation. Pay rates & Salary Bands, are determined by a market Bench Marking exercise with the assistance of Mercer Consultants. In addition an internal system of Merit considerations – called here the MyP3 process applies. This is in effect a Matrix style system designed to weigh increases across the system to, among other goals, encourage newer entrants to progress by higher awards and to encourage longer service staff to seek promotions by a reducing scale of increase as the staff member moves up within the pay band.

The Complainant, while a most valued employee, had issues with the Merit elements of the Salary Scheme during 2014. He, in association with local Management, was allowed to effectively have “a lighter touch” in the Merit evaluation system going forward from 2014. The corollary of this was that he would have to have an almost standardised annual award which in this case amounted to a 1% increase.

The grievance of the Complainant was examined at all stages of the Respondent’s Grievance Procedures and reached the ultimate internal level – a review by the Plant Manager. All the evidence was considered exhaustively and the Grievance disallowed.

The Complainant is part of the Salary review system which has applicability to all his colleagues both in the local Irish plant, other plants in Ireland and throughout Europe. The Special Arrangement regarding Merit Reviews made in 2014 is personal to the Complainant. It does have a downside but this is the balance that has to be accepted.

Extensive documentary evidence setting out in considerable detail the operations of the Salary review system were presented as was considerable explanatory oral evidence form Respondent Managers.

3; Findings and Conclusions:

As stated extensive evidence was presented by the Respondent’s Managers regarding the Salary determination system. The Scheme had been well communicated to all employees.

The situation of the Respondent in 2014 had been difficult and had been marked by considerable personal health challenges. The effective compromise at that date to facilitate the Complainant to avoid the stresses of an annual Merit review was reasonable and seemed to be a good practical resolution of a difficult personal situation.

The corollary of an almost standardised midpoint increase has to be recognised as the other side of the deal.

The Salary Determination processes is Companywide and is, while quite complex, designed to give a fair outcome to all parties. The Complainant has a local arrangement as regards the Merit elements but still has to be part of the System.

The Respondent Company has exemplary internal procedures and the Respondent’s case was comprehensively reviewed at all appropriate levels as set out in the procedures.

In summary, therefore, and having considered all the evidence I could see no valid reasons to concede this claim.

Decision:

Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Acts, 1969 requires that I make a recommendation in relation to the dispute.


Act	Complaint/Dispute Reference No.	Summary Decision
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969	CA-00007191-001	Having considered all the evidence I do not Recommend concession of this claim.

Dated: 11/07/2017

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Michael McEntee