FULL RECOMMENDATION
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : THE CHESHIRE FOUNDATION IN IRELAND TRADING AS CHESHIRE IRELAND - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION) DIVISION : Chairman: Ms O'Donnell Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Mr McCarthy |
1. Claim for Pay Increase
BACKGROUND:
2. This dispute could not be resolved at local level and was the subject of a Conciliation Conference under the auspices of the Workplace Relations Commission. As agreement was not reached, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on 15 July 2019 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on 23 October 2019.
UNION’S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Union is claiming that the range of duties/responsibilities the employee carries out justifies a substantial pay increase.
2. The Union is seeking a €5 increase in the hourly rate of pay to be back-dated for two years.
EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Employer disputes that the extra duties are at a managerial level and also the proportion of time spent doing the higher responsibility work.
2. The Employer also raised the difficulty of being a not-for-profit organisation with no available resources to allow for the increase being sought.
RECOMMENDATION:
The issue in dispute between the parties relates to the Worker’s rate of pay. It is the Worker’s submission that his original role involved general maintenance duties and grass-cutting, etc. Over time he has taken on additional duties related to transport and health and safety. While he is not the only person carrying out these roles, the other members of staff are on higher pay rates. He is seeking to be paid the same rate as the previous incumbent which was approximately €5.00 an hour more than he is currently being paid.
The Employer acknowledges that the Worker has taken on additional duties and has tried to address the issue by paying a higher rate for eight hours a week. The Employer does not accept that he does the full range of duties carried out by his predecessor and indicated that as a not-for-profit organisation it could not afford to pay an increase of five euro an hour. The Employer is aware that he is currently at the maximum of the scale he is on and that there is no natural progression to another scale available to him.
The Court having carefully read both parties' submissions and listened carefully to the arguments recommends that the Worker be placed on the first point of the Chargehand Craft HSE scale with effect from 1stNovember 2018 and on to the second point of that scale from the 1stMay 2019. He should then progress in the normal way through that scale. This Recommendation is in full and final settlement of the Worker’s claim in relation to his pay rate.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Louise O'Donnell
DC______________________
18 November 2019Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to David Campbell, Court Secretary.