ADJUDICATION OFFICER RECOMMENDATION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00009357
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Anonymised Parties | A Leisure Centre Manager | A Leisure Services Operating Company. |
Representatives | C. O'Toole of Dawson O'Toole Solicitors | General Manager |
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-00012253-001 | 03/07/2017 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 26/09/2017
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Michael McEntee
Procedure:
In accordance 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).
Background:
This dispute concerns a claim by a Leisure Centre Manger for a salary enhancement. This is largely based on comparisons with other Centre Managers in the same Company. |
1: Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The Complainant has been employed by the Respondent since December 1997. The Respondent operates three Leisure Centres, A, B and C. The Respondent is based in Centre A but has some weekly duties in Centre B. The Managers of the other Centres (B &C) have significantly higher salaries than the Complainant. The Complainant feels that his lower salary should be revised in keeping with his experience and qualifications and specifically with regard to the disparity with the other Managers. |
2: Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The Respondent organisation operates three leisure Centres; effectively on behalf of the Local Authorities in the area. The Company is a completely separate legal entity from any of the Local Authorities. It has an independent Board and a separate operating budget. Two of the three centres in question have swimming pools – Centres B & C. Centre A, where the Complainant is based ,does not have a Swimming Pool. Accordingly the Salaries of the Managers reflect this operating difference. Centre A is a “Dry Centre” and has a lower salary in view of the acknowledged lower levels of responsibility. The Respondent acknowledges the vital contribution made by the Complainant over his long period of service. However the Respondent has a very limited Budget and is under constant financial pressure to avoid losses. An offer of a possible review or what could be approximately described as a long service increment to bring his salary to € 42,708 is the best that the Respondent could possibly propose in the current challenging financial situation. Obviously it would need to be sanctioned by the Board of the company but the Complainant should indicate his acceptance before the General Manager could seek Board approval. |
3: Findings and Conclusions:
Having listened to the evidence presented and the discussions between the parties I came to the view that the differences between the “Wet” and “Dry” Centres would always be an insurmountable obstacle for the Complainant in any parity Salary Claim. The differential between the Two positions stood at 35.7% (€ 14,244) of the lesser figure of €39,855.07 on the 6th September 2016. In times past a body such as the Irish Productivity Centre (now no longer in existence) might usefully have been commissioned to do a Job Comparison exercise. Even in this were to happen the parity claim would never, in my opinion, stand up in its entirety. None the less the Complainant has very long and exemplary service and is due some recognition. The evidence given also indicated that the Complainant had a very broad job profile and also attended at Centre B on a one day per week basis. On the evidence presented I was not happy with the absolute size of the differential. Having listen to the arguments between the parties I accordingly recommend that the “Long Service Offer” of €42,708 be paid as offered , ( effective from the 6th September 2016 as per the pay scales supplied) and be increased by one further increment of €1,819 to be payable on the 1st July 2018. This is a special once off Recommendation linked exclusively to the circumstances of the Complainant (the only person in his grade) and is to be non precedent stetting for any other claims from whatever source against this Respondent Employer. |
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 Recommendation |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969 |
CA-00012253-001 | Offer of € 42,708 to be accepted with effect from the 6th September 2016. Additional increment of € 1,819 to be paid on the 1st July 2018. Award is once off and without any precedent setting implications. |
Dated: 16th November 2017
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Michael McEntee
Key Words:
|