Complainant

Respondent

Parties

I.T Technician

A Local Authority

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-00008403-001

25/11/2016

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991

CA-00008444-001

29/11/2016

At the outset it was established that the same set of facts applied to both claims submitted.             The Complainant contends that he was wrongly classified as a Grade 3 Clerical Officer whereas he should have been appointed to Grade 5 as he was carrying out the same duties as a Grade 5 I.T. Technician.      

The Complainant started working for the Respondent under the ‘Job bridge’ scheme in August 2013 and was then offered a role performing the same functions, essentially that of an I.T. Support Technician in May 2014. His employment ended in August 2016. When he was finished on the Job bridge scheme, the Complainant was offered the position as Grade 3 and was not satisfied that the grade was correct as fellow workers were carrying out the same duties as he was but were on a much higher grade. He believed this was unfair and he was told either take the Grade 3 or nothing. He made representations to his Union and correspondence was exchanged between the parties. However no agreement was forthcoming.   It is argued that the written employment contract given to the Complainant did not reflect the actual role he performed and that the ‘secondary contract’ must be looked to going beyond the written contract and that the Complainant was carrying out a job for which he was not paid the correct rate.  

The Complainant has advised that he is in dispute with the Respondent under the Industrial Relations Act 1969 as follows: “Wrongly classified in terms of work. Worked as an IT support technician grade 5 but was paid as a clerical officer grade 3”.     He has also advised that the Respondent has acted contrary to the Payment of Wages Act 1991 in the same set of circumstances.   The Clerical Officer post to which the Complainant was assigned, on a temporary basis, was to facilitate IT works leading into a merger which resulted in two local authorities merging to one.                 It is accepted that the Complainant initially expressed dissatisfaction with the Clerical Officer contract and it was stated to him at the time that this was the only offer being made.                             It should be noted that the Complainant was afforded the opportunity to apply for Grade 5 posts within IT and he was placed on a panel from which future vacancies will be filed during the lifetime of the panel.     It is argued that the claim under the Payment of Wages Act 1991 is disbarred as the contractual rate of pay in dispute was contained in his contract of employment at the commencement of same, i.e. 1^st April 2014, and as his complaint was made to the WRC on 29^th November 2016, this clearly is outside the six month and twelve month time limits.                          Without prejudice to the above, it is submitted that the Respondent is satisfied that the Complainant received all amounts properly payable (as referenced in Section 5 (6) of the Act), and that he entered into a contract for a specified salary and was in receipt of that salary without deduction (other than statutory deductions) for the duration of the contract(s).                                                       Employers are the subject of claims on an ongoing basis for increases in salary and re-grading claims, and if such claims were simply a matter of pursuing a claim under the Payment of Wages Act 1991, then the WRC would be dealing with claims such as this on a daily basis. It is submitted that in the present case there is a contract of employment and a set of policies in existence which sets out the associated terms and conditions governing the employer-employee relationship. In such circumstances, the matter is not a matter for the Payment of Wages Act 1991 but if anything relates to a contractual dispute between the parties.   It is submitted that the Complainant’s complaints under the two Acts are exactly the same and he cannot seek redress under both Acts.   Further, it is submitted that regrading claims are specifically precluded, on the basis that they are cost-increasing, under the provisions of the Public Services Agreement at paragraphs 1.25 – 1.28 and re-affirmed under Section 5.1 of the Haddington Road Agreement.                                                                               The Complainant contends that his position was wrongly classified as clerical officer because he was engaged in the IT area. The reality is that the IT area, like all other clerical admin areas in local authorities has a standard grading structure which commences at Grade 3, thereafter Grade 4, Grade 5, Grade 6 and Grade 7. There is a significant difference between Grade 3 and Grade 5 (approx. 70% differential). The Complainant could not have been appointed as Grade 5 from the commencement of his employment as the current qualifications for the role dictate that a candidate must have two years satisfactory experience in a post of Clerical Officer or analogous post.

CA-00008403-001 Industrial Relations Act 1969

The Complainant was appointed to Grade 3 and given an employment contract reflecting this.     While he was dissatisfied at the time, it was made clear to him that that was the only grade on offer.     From the evidence, the policy and procedures for appointment to Grade 5 would not allow for the Respondent to recruit the Complainant at Grade 5. The Complainant was given an opportunity to apply for promotion to Grade 5 during the course of his employment.     For the reasons stated above, and the fact that the Public Sector Agreements, and most recent one, The Landsdowne Road Agreement prevent the lodging of cost increasing claims, I do not uphold the Complainant’s claim.

CA-00008444-01   Payment of Wages Act 1991

The exact same set of circumstances pertain to the Complainant’s complaint under this Act.       Section 5 (6) of the Act provides:

“Where –

(a)   the total amount of any wages that are paid on any occasion by an employer to an employee is less than the total amount of wages that is properly payable by him to the employee on that occasion (after making any deductions therefrom that fall to be made and are in accordance with this Act), or

(b)   none of the wages that are properly payable to an employee by an employer on any occasion (after making such deductions as aforesaid) are paid to the employee, them except in so far as the deficiency or non-payment is attributable to an error of computation, the amount of the deficiency or non-payment shall be treated as a deduction made by the employer from the wages of the employee on the occasion”.

The Complainant contends that he was wrongly classified at a lower grade than that on which he should have been placed.   As found in case reference CA-00008403-001 above, the Complainant was given a written employment contract at Grade 3 and wages properly payable at this grade were paid to him throughout his employment. I do not find his complaint to be well founded.