ADJUDICATION OFFICER RECOMMENDATION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00020453
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Anonymised Parties | Supervisor | Construction |
Representatives | James Mc Veigh SIPTU | Lefre de Burgh |
Complaint:
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-00026988-001 | 12/03/2019 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 05/11/2019
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Jim O'Connell
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Acts 1969] following the referral of the dispute to me by the Director General, I inquired into the dispute and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the dispute
Industrial Relations Act 1969
CA-00026988-001
Background
It was submitted that the claimant has been working for the respondent for more than 20 years as a General operative and was on the general operative’s rate.
In the early 2000s, the claimant was appointed as a supervisor, while on a tank cleaning project at the client premises and received a corresponding increase in pay-his pay was uplifted to the next pay (Respondent’s “Tradesman’s rate”.)
This represented a 20% increase on his GO role, and this was readily accepted by the claimant.
The respondent submitted since the inception of a supervisor’s rate; it has been the respondent’s policy to apply a premium of approximately 20% to the pay -rate already attributable to the individuals assuming the role. Therefore, a general operative who receives a promotion is offered the Tradesperson’s (which is rate approximately 20% higher) and a Tradesperson who is promoted approximately 20% above the Trade rate.
The respondent regards having a trade as a form of third level qualification and reflects that in their pay rates.
Findings
I find that the respondent has a differential of 20% above the Trade rate for the category. I find that the claimant produced no evidence that this was out of line with other industries. Decision:
Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Acts, 1969 requires that I make a recommendation in relation to the dispute.]
I cannot support the claimant’s claim and I uphold the respondent’s position