Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

An Employee

A Credit Union

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-00031134-001

25/09/2019

The Complainant contends that she was unfairly denied the opportunity to apply for promotion and that the Respondent reneged on a promise to increase her rate of pay.

The Complainant has over 30 years’ service with the Respondent.   Over that time, she has filled a number of roles in the organisation and is one of the longest serving members of staff.                       In 2018, the Respondent filled a role of Senior Loans Officer.   The post had been advertised externally with certain criteria attached, which excluded all existing staff from applying for the post.   The successful candidate remained in position for only a short period. The role was then split between two members of staff. It is submitted that in handpicking these two staff members, the Respondent failed to provide the Complainant with any opportunity to apply for the new roles. Further, the Respondent offered the Complainant an equivalent rate of pay as that of a Senior Loans Officer as part of a resolution of her grievance in the matter. However, when she was advised of the new rate of pay it did not reflect this promise.     It is submitted that the Complainant is very aggrieved by the situation, having to work two Saturdays in four, whereas her colleagues only have to work one in four. The Respondent espouses to be an equal opportunities employer but on this occasion that has been denied to the Complainant.

There was no ‘promotional’ opportunity for which the Complainant could have applied for. Rather two other members of staff operating in the positions of Loan Officer and Credit Control had their roles enriched to meet obligations arising following the termination of the Senior Loans Officer in October 2018.   The Complainant is employed as a Teller / Office Assistant / Cash Controller.   Due to the Senior Loans Officer being unable to meet the requirements of the role, she was dismissed. Much of her work was being completed by the other loans officer and the credit control officer.     The CEO was required to assess the situation and as the Credit Union was expected to merge with a larger credit union in the near future she determined that the most prudent and appropriate manner to address the needs of meeting the obligations of the credit union was to formalize the acting up arrangements of the two staff members who were carrying out the role. Following a decision by the Board to formalize the roles, all staff were informed by email. The Complainant complained some two months later to the CEO. A number of grievance meetings were held, during which the Respondent offered to pay the Complainant an increased hourly rate, based on her revocation of agreement to relinquish pay increases during a career break.   The Board subsequently became aware that two other staff members were on a lesser hourly rate than colleagues in the same role. So the Complainant and her colleagues’ rate of pay was increased to €17.15 per hour.                                                                                                                                                             In summary, it is argued that there was no vacant position for which the Complainant could have applied for.   The Complainant operated as a ‘Cash Controller’, she did not operate within the loans area. The two colleagues who had been in the roles for a number of years and who had been carrying out the work were recognised.   It is further submitted that the Respondent was fair and reasonable in dealing with the Complainant’s grievance, granting a 5% increase to try and resolve the grievance. Any concession to the pay claim would be in breach of company / union pay agreement in 2019 which prevents any cost increasing claims.

Loss of opportunity to apply for promotion. Pay claim not upheld.