Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

An Office Supervisor

A Credit Union

Representatives

Bernadette Thornton, SIPTU

Ananta Kaur , IBEC

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-00022483-001

08/10/2018

This complaint relates to a grievance about an application for a pay increase that was refused.   The complainant is the office supervisor and while she was absent from work due to illness in 2017, three of her colleagues received additional pay to compensate them for taking over her responsibilities during her absence. In May 2018, the complainant discovered that her colleagues had retained the increases that they were paid when she was out sick, although she had been back at work since November 2017. Two employees received pensionable increases of 10.1% and another employee received a non-pensionable allowance of €50 per week.

The complainant looked for a pay increase, but this was refused and in June 2018, she met the chairperson of the board of the credit union to make a case to her. In response, the chairperson said that no decision would be made until a new chief executive officer (CEO) was appointed.   The complainant met the new CEO following his appointment in September 2018. He advised her that he would take 12 months to consider the roles in the credit union and assess the appropriate rates of pay for each. As the complainant had reached the end of the grievance process, she submitted this complaint for adjudication to the WRC.

The complainant’s case is that she had not received an increase in her pay, unlike three of her colleagues. She feels that this is inequitable and unfair and she is seeking a pay increase of 10.1% in line with two of her co-workers.

At the hearing, Ms Kaur said that the complainant is currently paid at a rate higher than the benchmark rate for an office supervisor in a credit union. She received an increase of 1% on January 1st 2017 and again in January 2018, in line with an agreement negotiated with her trade union.

The company’s submission notes the increases that were granted to the complainant’s colleagues in 2017, while she was absent on sick leave. The submission also accurately reflects the complainant’s account of events as they are set out in the “Background” section above.

At the hearing of this complaint, the respondent set out the reasons why it decided to award pay increases to the complainant’s colleagues, but not to her. This is not a reflection on the contribution of the complainant to the work of the credit union; neither is it a reflection on her performance as the office supervisor. It appears that the complainant’s salary is significantly higher than office supervisors in other credit unions and, in part, this is the reason her request for an increase has been rejected.

At the hearing, I was informed that a strategic review of the operation of the credit union will be completed in March 2019. The CEO and the director who attended the hearing asked for time for this review to be completed so that consideration could be given to any changes in the operation of the credit union, and the potential introduction of new products that would impact on the role of all the employees.

Two months after the hearing of this complaint, I received an e mail from Ms Thornton in which she said that, regardless of the review, the complainant is seeking a decision on her complaint. Ms Thornton said that the complainant disagrees with the respondent’s position that her salary is above the normal rate of pay for her role because the comparators used were not semi-state credit unions.

Having considered this matter, it is my view that the complainant’s salary is appropriate for her role and the failure of the credit union to award her an increase is not unreasonable. As a result of the review, it is possible that the complainant may be required to take on new or different responsibilities and I think that the most constructive approach to this grievance is to consider the complainant’s request for a pay increase in light of the outcome of the strategic review.

I recommend that the complainant and the CEO open discussions on the appropriate rate of pay for her job at the conclusion of the strategic review of operations and the implementation of any changes decided on by the board of directors at that time.

Grievance, pay increase