00006359

ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION/RECOMMENDATION

Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00006359

Parties:

Complaint(s):

Date of Adjudication Hearing: 26/05/2017

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Gerry Rooney

Location of Hearing: The Ardboyne Hotel

Procedure:

In accordance with Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Acts 1969, following the referral of the dispute to me by the Director General, I inquired into the dispute and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the dispute.

Background:

The Complaint is employed since 25^th September 2005 as a Clerical Officer in a Credit Union.

The dispute refers to a claim to have a salary upgrade backdated where the Complainant deems her role changed in 2008 and since then she maintains her role is aligned to loan officer responsibilities.

Her current rate of pay is €709.28 gross per week.

The Complainant maintained that she raised a grievance through local procedures in 2008 to address her claim, that she received a salary upgrade in 2015 but that the Respondent has not accepted any back payment is warranted. The Complainant is dissatisfied with this response and is seeking a recommendation that her pay claim is back dated to 2008.

Summary of Complainant’s Case:

The Complainant maintained that she was appointed in 2005 as a Clerical Officer, but by 2008 her role had broadened to a role that was more akin to a Loans Officer. In 2008 she commenced a BSc Degree in Mutual & Credit Union Business that was financially supported by the Respondent. She sought also sought a salary review at that stage.

The Complainant submitted that she raised her claim a number of times throughout the years and again in 2014 when the Remuneration Committee were conducting a salary review. She was awarded an increase to point 6 of the salary scale in January 2015, and at this time she was also issued with a new job description which she argued reflected the duties she had been completing since 2008. The Complainant contended this was an interim arrangement until all of her issues were reviewed and resolved. At this time, the Complainant was seeking to have her claim backdated to 2011, and advised that her contract states that her salary should be reviewed on an annual basis, and this had only happened twice in her 10 years of service.

However, the Complainant has since revised her claim and is seeking the payment to be backdated to 2008 as she argued that this was a more appropriate point of reference as that is when she first started her claim and when her role was expanded.

The Complainant advised that in September 2015 she received a letter from the Remuneration Committee which indicated it had recommended a consideration that she receive back payment of €8,000 for incremental increases (back to 2008), in addition to recommendations that the role of Loams Officer was to be a salaried post, and that an external HR firm would be appointed to conduct a full review of all positions. The Complainant had sought clarification on the basis of the €8,000 back payment but she did not receive this information from the Respondent. The Complainant was advised that no decision had been made on the back payment. However, a commitment was given to the Complainant that the matter would be resolved fully and finally in the lifetime of the then Board of Directors.

Following a review of issues in March 2016, the Complainant was advised that her job description was to remain as Clerical Officer/Loans Officer, that her retrospective claim back to 2008 was declined, and that no change was to be made to the incremental pay scales at that time. The Complainant met with the Respondent in April 2016 to progress matters, but the issues remained unresolved at this time.

In progressing her claim internally, the Complainant was advised in July 2016 that the Respondent was creating two new Loan Officer roles and that the Complainant could apply for one of these roles, or she could remain at her current position without any change to her remuneration. The Complainant contended she had been performing the Loans Officer role as it stood, and having reviewed the new Loans Officer role she decided to remain in her current position, and where her claim for back pay remained to be resolved. It was at this point her Trade Union advised her to restate her claim back to 2008.

In summary, the Complainant maintained that her role had changed, and this was recognised by awarding her to point 6 of the Clerical Officer increment scale in January 2015. As she did not want to apply for the newly created Loans Officer roles she was seeking back payment for the period from 2008 when her role had in fact changed and where she argued, similar to what other work colleagues received, she should have enjoyed incremental increases but she did not. On that basis, the Complainant was seeking back pay of €2,861.95 per year from 2008 to 2014 which amounted to €20,033.65.

As the matter remained unresolved the Complainant sought a recommendation to the dispute to the WRC in 2016 under the Industrial Relations Act 1967 where she is seeking a recommendation on a date for backdating her claim.

Summary of Respondent’s Case:

The Respondent acknowledged that the Complainant was employed as a Clerical Officer since 2005. The Respondent maintained that as part of this role she was required to underwrite and approve loans, and where these duties are also carried out by a number of staff members in the Credit Union.

The Respondent submitted that following the Complainant completing a Diploma in in Mutual & Credit Union Business in 2008 she sought a pay increase, and where she also requested funding to complete a BSc. Her request for a pay increase was denied but she was offered and accepted funding for her studies. The Respondent further submitted that in 2014 the Complainant again sought a pay increase and it was agreed to grant a pay increase. On 21^st January 2015, the Respondent advised the Complainant that she was being moved to the to the top of the Clerical Officer scale (point 6), and where she was also issued with a revised job description, which was signed by the Complainant on 16^th February 2015. On the same day the Complainant wrote to the Respondent and advised that her salary increase was done as an interim step where she sought for the increase to be paid from January 2015, and that the back dating of the increase be revised to when she first raised her claim. As the increase brought her salary to €36,882.56 she was also seeking an increase to €39 of €40k per annum, and where she provided reasons for this increase.

On 29^th September 2015, the Respondent advised the Complainant a full review of job titles, job descriptions and salaries would take place. The review was completed in February 2016 and where the Respondent was advised by the reviewer that its salary scales were on the upper end of the Credit Union market, and where staff also benefitted from other benefits such as pension contributions. As a consequence, the Respondent advised the Complainant in March 2016 that there would be no change to her salary, and where her back claim had been denied. The Respondent met with the Complainant and her trade Union representative in April 2016 to explain its decision.

The Respondent also maintained that the Complainant’s salary was never related to an incremental pay scale and where the Complainant was on a similar contract to three other members of staff, that none of these staff received an increase to their salaries, and the Complainant was the only member of staff that received an 11% increase to her salary in 2015.

In summary, the Respondent submitted that it had dealt with the Complainant’s claim fairly, that it paid the Complainant an 11% increase in early 2015, and that it never presented this increase as an interim measure. The Respondent contended that what was to be interim was the job description as the Complainant wished for the title to be referred to as Loans Officer and where the clerical officer descriptor should be removed. The Respondent reviewed this and decided to create new Loans Officer roles where the Complainant could have applied for but decided not to.   Accordingly, the Respondent argued that it had increased the Complainant’s salary as a Clerical office in early 2015, that she had decided not to apply for the new Loans Office role and therefore matters had been dealt with. The Respondent rejected that the pay increase should be backdated to 2008.

Findings and Recommendation:

Section 13 (3)(a)(i) of the Industrial Relations Acts, 1969 requires that I make a recommendation to the parties to the dispute setting forth my opinion on the merits of the dispute.

Having heard the evidence presented by the parties I am satisfied that the Complainant has sought a pay increase in 2008 and the outcome of that process was she accepted funding for her participation on a BSc course of study. This is evidenced in a letter sent to the Complainant by the Respondent on 24^th November 2008. The Complainant did not raise any further claim at that stage regarding her salary. On that basis, I am satisfied that her claim in 2008 had been resolved and where she accepted the Respondent’s offer to fund her education. She made no further attempt to progress a pay claim at that time. It would therefore be unreasonable for a claim to be retrospectively dated to 2008 as she had accepted an offer at that time and where no further claim was progressed until 2014.

I note the Complainant’s contract of employment states that salaries are reviewed annually and in addition, salaries will be increased in line with centralised pay agreements. A review of the correspondence submitted by the parties indicates that the Complainant sought a salary review in circa May 2014 and this led to an increase being awarded and accepted in February 2016. At this time the Complainant sought a further increase to €39 or €40K from the €36,882.56 that was awarded. A new job description was also issued to the Complainant. It appears that the Complainant considered the offer as an interim, however the Respondent maintained that the only matter that was an interim was the job description. The salary increase was definitive. A review of the correspondence between the parties does not indicate the salary increase was offered on an interim basis.

Notwithstanding the parties engaged in a process to resolve the issue and where the Complainant was advised on 29^th September 2015 in a without prejudice written correspondence from the Remuneration Committee that it had recommended to the Board €8,000 should be awarded to the Complainant to address her back-payment claim.

I am therefore satisfied that by this time, having considered matters, the Respondent’s Remuneration Committee had accepted the Complainant was entitled to a back-payment, and provided her with an expectation that this would amount to €8,000. However, in March 2016 the Complainant was then advised in writing that her claim for back-payments was declined.

Based on the cases presented, I am satisfied that the Complainant and Respondent entered into negotiations in an attempt to resolve the Complainant’s claim for back payment of a pay award. The Respondent as part of these negotiations indicated to the Complainant in writing that it was recommending €8,000 in back pay (compared to the €20,033.65 being sought). I therefore find that the Complainant was provided with an acknowledgement that she was entitled to receive back pay, and where in September 2015 the Respondent had raised an expectation this would amount to €8,000, but in March 2016 had decided to decline the payment of back pay.

I therefore recommend that the Complainant be awarded the €8,000 in back pay which was the amount that was recommended by the Remuneration Committee, and where this recommendation was shared in writing with the Complainant at the time.

Dated:   29/08/2017

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Gerry Rooney

Key Words: