Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

{A Senior Executive}

{A Public Sector Body}

Representatives

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-00020849-001

29/07/2018

The Worker is a Senior Executive with over 30 years of service in a Public Sector Body. He was promoted on 29th May 2017 and the position offered to him at his current salary level which salary was open to review as finances improve.

Representations were made to the Worker that pending the outcome of another matter the issue of remuneration would be discussed. He was officially appointed to his new role on 8th December 2017.

The salary offered is significantly below the level of the previous incumbent, and salary packages of others at a lower level in the organisation which are legacy packages. The salary increase was applied without agreement contrary to usual practice. It does not specify the point on scale. There has been no effort to address the Worker’s grievance in a reasonable way. Other individuals are being treated in a more favourable manner in similar circumstances.

The Worker seeks that the salary package of the previous incumbent be extended to him retrospective to 8 December 2017. There is a differential in salary of 15.9% and in total package of 26.9% with the former incumbent. The position and responsibilities remain the same. The role usually gives relief to another position, changes to the role and the relief given have not been reflected in correspondence to the Worker and he still awaits this.

The Worker has compared himself to peers at the same level and the salary differential which he suffers is 19.54%. He is at a disadvantage of 9.22% in salary to colleagues at a level below him. He withdrew his application for the role when he discovered prior to interview there would be no salary increase, and was assured by his line manager that a salary increase would apply and he would be treated in line with his colleagues.

The Worker is disappointed that no real effort has been made to address his grievance, and he has been informed that nothing can be done for him. If his financial package is increased, it has implications and will impact on a number of others.

Another peer received a similar promotion recently and was appointed on the same salary as his predecessor (which is the same as the Worker’s predecessor). He does not accept that financial constraints genuinely apply, says the organisation are not consistent in their approach and he is suffering a disadvantage. He relies on the recommendation of the Labour Court [LCR17799] Bord Na GCON v SIPTU.

The Respondent advertised 6 other Senior Executive positions at the same time as the Worker’s new role was advertised. The successful candidates were offered the positions in October 2017. All of the appointees accepted their new roles on the understanding that there would be no immediate increase in their salaries due to the financial position of the organisation.

There was a commitment given to the successful candidates that there would be an increase in salary for their new roles in future after a matter was resolved and finances improved.

The pay increases and terms did not meet the expectations of the 7 Senior Executives involved. The Respondent says that the incumbent was on a higher salary however that is not uncommon due to downward pressure on salaries and financial packages. Salary levels differ across management roles

according to different factors. The decision was made in relation to the salary for the roles taking these considerations into account. There are further pay increases due to staff in 2018 and 2019.

The organisation are of the view that a decision in favour of the Worker would lead to potential further claims by senior managers and would create an unwelcome precedent. The organisation is subject to a Labour Court recommendation which states “That no future cost increasing claims will be made by the Trade Unions during the lifetime of this agreement and that the Company will not, outside of the engagements set out in this recommendation, propose any measures that will change employee’s terms and conditions of employment except through the medium of productivity discussions”.

From a careful consideration of the evidence and submissions of the parties, pursuant to S13 (2) of the Industrial Relations Act 1969, I am of the view that I am precluded from making a recommendation in relation to this complaint as this issue relates to a body of workers and any recommendation I make may have broader implications beyond the Worker himself. The Worker has been promoted. He has long and excellent service and confirmation should issue that he is at the top point of the applicable scale, and in relation to relief terms without further delay.

Body of Workers, promotion, legacy salaries and package