FULL RECOMMENDATION
SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : ATLANTIC INDUSTRIES T/A ATHY INTERNATIONAL CONCENTRATES (REPRESENTED BY ARTHUR COX) - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION) DIVISION : Chairman: Ms O'Donnell Employer Member: Ms Doyle Worker Member: Ms Treacy |
1. An appeal of an Adjudication Officer's Decision no: ADJ-00005086.
BACKGROUND:
2. This case concerns a dispute by the Worker that the Employer’s pay determination process is unfair.
- The Union on behalf of the Worker said that the current pay increase system is unfair and as a consequence the Worker was not awarded the same pay increases to that of his work colleagues.
The Employer said the pay determination process that applies to the Worker, applies company-wide for employees of the Workers grade across its operations in Ireland, the United States and worldwide.
- This matter was referred to an Adjudication Officer for investigation and Recommendation. On the 11 July 2017 the Adjudication Officer issued the following Recommendation:-
- “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 Complainant 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 Process 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 Complainant’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.”
The Worker appealed the Adjudication Officer’s Recommendation to the Labour Court on the 2 August 2017 in accordance with Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969.
A Labour Court hearing took place on the 13 October 2017.
WORKER’S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Worker only received a 1% pay increase while many of his colleagues received a 2% increase.
2. Between 2010 and 2015 the Worker’s annual increase was very similar to that of his colleagues.
- 3 The Company failed to provide the Worker with clear and transparent written changes to his contract of employment in relation to the pay increases system.
EMPLOYER’S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Worker accepted the pay determination process for a number of years, a process which the Company had explained in detail to all relevant employees in both 2009 and 2011.
2. Since 2014 the Worker has not engaged with the performance rating element of the process and has been awarded a Successful Performance (SP) rating, as standard.
3. If the Worker wishes to be awarded an improved performance rating, it is necessary for him to engage in the performance rating process.
DECISION:
This is an appeal by the Union on behalf of a worker of an Adjudication Officers decision in which the workers complaint was that “I have not received the same pay increase as many of my work Colleagues. I am not satisfied with the company’s response to the matter when I raised it as internal grievance.”The Adjudication Officer did not uphold the complaint.
Union Position
The employer has a pay system for this category of staff that was not negotiated with the Union. In 2016 the worker only received a 1% pay increase under the system when a lot of his colleagues received 2%. The worker had reached an agreement in 2014 with local management that he would not partake in the merit element of the pay system but would instead receive a set rating. The worker was not clear on how the system worked and had in the past requested information in relation to the same. It was his position that he should have received a 2% increase in 2016 in line with other workers.
Employer Position
The company has a pay determination process which has a number of components for the workers grade. The worker is currently on a salary level that is greater than 1.10 % of the midpoint of his band which in 2016 generated an increase of 1% for staff who received the rating that this worker received. To receive a higher award the worker would have to participate in the merit element of the scheme and achieved a higher rating. Approximately one quarter of the work force covered by this pay scheme received the same award as the worker.
Discussion
In the course of discussion the employer confirmed that it was open to the employee to return to the merit element of the scheme. They indicated that as it had been three years since he participated in the scheme they would engage with him to ensure he understood the scheme and provide any relevant support. Following consultation with the worker the Union advised that this was not an option he was interested in pursuing at this time and that his claim was for a 1% pay rise to match the award received by other staff.
The Court having considered the detailed submission of both parties and the oral submissions made on the day finds the pay determination process was applied to the worker in the same manner as it was applied to other staff. The recommendation of the Adjudication Officer is affirmed and the appeal is disallowed.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Louise O'Donnell
CR______________________
26th October, 2017Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Ciaran Roche, Court Secretary.