ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION/RECOMMENDATION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00024032
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Anonymised Parties | Accountant | Education Support Organisation |
Representatives | In person | General Secretary |
Complaint(s):
Act | Complaint/Dispute Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991 | CA-00030460-001 | 23/08/2019 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 30/01/2020
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Gene Mealy
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 [and/or Section 39 of the Redundancy Payments Acts 1967 - 2014 and/or Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Acts, 1977 - 2015, and/or Section 9 of the Protection of Employees (Employers’ Insolvency) Acts, 1984 - 2012, and/or Part VII of the Pensions Acts 1990 - 2015 and/or Section 79 of the Employment Equality Acts, 1998 - 2015, and/or Section 25 of the Equal Status Act, 2000, and/or Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Acts 1969] following the referral of the complaint(s)/dispute(s) to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaint(s)/dispute(s) and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaint(s)/dispute(s).
Background:
The claimant is seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act 1991. The respondent employer is a company limited by guarantee and is also a registered charity. The claimant submits he commenced employment with the respondent on the 5th January 2017 and that his current salary is less than that contained in his Contract of Employment and job description. The claimant submits that his current position is aligned to that applicable to a Senior Auditor in the Office of the Comptroller and Auditor General which is at the Assistant Principle level in the Civil Service. The claimant submits he took up the position on the clear basis that it was linked to that of the Assistant Principle in the Office of the Comptroller and Auditor General – Senior Auditor. The initial salary reflected the appropriate salary scale but has diverged over time. The respondent denies that the claimant has been underpaid and submit that he is being paid as per the salary scale set out in his Contract of Employment and Terms and Conditions of Employment. |
Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The claimant submits that his current salary is less than the figure to which his Contract of Employment and job description documents make provision for. The claimant submits that the job description document clearly states that the salary scale for his current role will be based on the salary scale of Senior Auditor applicable in the Office of the Comptroller and Auditor General. Since the claimant’s appointment, which at the time reflected the salary scale applicable to Senior Auditor / Assistant Principle in the Civil Service, there has been a divergence in the scales of the claimant and the comparable grade in the Civil Service, which, unless rectified, could amount to a figure in the region of €5,249 per annum and a similar amount for every year thereafter. The claimant submits that he took up the position on the clear basis that his salary was linked to the salary scale in his job description document and would change in accordance with the applicable salary scale in the Office of the Comptroller and Auditor General. |
Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The respondent submits that the claimant commenced employment as a Primary Schools Co-Ordinator on the 5th January 2017 and signed his Contract of Employment on the same day and, under Clause 4-1 of his Contract of Employment in relation to salary it specifies that the salary on appointment “will be as per the salary scale outlined in the job description per annum”. Clause 4-2 of the Contract of Employment specifies that the salary “will be reviewed in line with the organisations salary policy”. They submit that in line with the specifics of the salary provisions of the Contract of Employment and Terms and Conditions of Employment, the only increases to take place in respect of salary is for the movement from one point on the claimant’s salary scale to the next point and the model for the organisation is based on a fixed salary model. The respondent company denies that the claimant should be remunerated at the current salary scale applicable in the Office of the Comptroller and Auditor General – Senior Auditor which is aligned to the level of Assistant Principle on full PRSI in the Civil Service. They submit that the claimant signed the Contract of Employment accepting the Terms and Conditions of Employment which provided for a fixed salary scale which the claimant is being remunerated at and the Contract of Employment has not been varied, adjusted or amended in any way since being accepted by the claimant. The respondent company submits that the claim submitted by the claimant is without substance and that the claimant has been paid the correct amount of wages due to him in accordance with his Contract of Employment. The respondent rejects the suggestion by the claimant that he is owed money in the context of pay not received. |
Findings and Conclusions:
The claim was referred for adjudication under Section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act 1991. I have considered all the evidence, both verbal and written, submitted and adduced at the hearing. There is no dispute between the claimant and the respondent that the salary on commencement of employment was that applicable in the Office of the Comptroller and Auditor General – Senior Auditor / Assistant Principle in the Civil Service. The claimant’s position is that the original job advertisement stated that, “Remuneration will be based on the salary scale applicable in the office of the Comptroller and Auditor General for Senior Auditor, standard scale on full PRSI”. The respondent submits that the claimant is not entitled to any pay increase, save that provided for in accordance with his Contract of Employment, ie: the fixed salary scale. It is denied that the claimants salary scale would change in accordance with the Civil Service. The respondent company stated that it is currently carrying out a review of all salaries within the company, including the claimants. It is clear the claimant is neither a Public Servant or a Civil Servant. It is also clear based on the job advertisement that the claimant would have had a reasonable expectation of having his salary adjusted in line with the position of Senior Auditor in the Office of the Comptroller and Auditor General particularly as the starting salary scale reflected that of the relevant post in the Office of the Comptroller and Auditor General. However, having considered all the evidence in the instant case and recognising that the salary paid to the claimant is in accordance with the salary scale outlined in the Contract of Employment and signed by the claimant, I have concluded that the maintenance of a relativity is not envisioned by the Payment of Wages Act 1991. As, a consequence, I find that there has been no breach of the Payment of Wages Act 1991 and, I find that the claim is not well founded. |
Decision:
Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint(s)/dispute(s) in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act.
Section 6 of the payment of Wages Act 1991 requires that I make a decision in accordance with the Act
I find that there has been no breach of the Payment of Wages Act 1991 and, I find that the claim is not well founded. |
Dated: 18th May 2020
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Gene Mealy
Key Words:
“Payment of Wages” |