Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

A Worker

A Local Authority

Representatives

Thomas Murtagh IMPACT Trade Union

 N/A

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-00034888-001

27/02/2020

The Worker commenced employment with the Employer on 7th June 2005. Following an application by his union, he received a pay increase in January 2020 which was subsequently backdated to October 2019. He is claiming that this should be backdated to his start date with the Employer however given that he was underpaid when compared to other workers.

Having been made aware by a colleague in October 2019 that he was underpaid for driving a bin truck, the Worker contacted his union Forsa to see if this indeed was the case. On meeting with him, the union official highlighted that he should have been paid at Group 3 and not at group 2 because a 1998 agreement signed with the Employer stipulated that bin car drivers should be paid at Group 3. It was stated that this oversight was understandable however given that the Worker was driving a bin truck in the city centre and that there were no other drivers in the area.

Given that he has been underpaid since 2005, the Worker is looking for retrospection but recognises that given the length of time involved, full retrospection is not expected.

The Employer stated in the first instance that the Worker’s claim for additional pay in October 2019 was assessed on its own merit but that it also ran parallel to other assessments carried out within Waste Management Services for drivers that drive vehicles that require a C-License. Terms were agreed with the Trade Union involved and the named staff, like the Worker in the instant dispute were paid from the date of claim. No subsequent retrospective claim was received from these staff members and their union.

It was also stated that the 1998 General Operative Agreement gave an increase for the bin truck drivers and moved them onto Group 3 of the General Operative scale on the condition that the terms and conditions of the agreement were accepted.  One of the terms and conditions in that agreement stipulates “the increased route sizes, 700 lifts per day is to be raised to in excess of 1,000 lifts per day (50%+)” and the bin truck drivers upgraded as part of the 1998 General Operative Agreement were responsible for ensuring the route including in excess of 1,000 lifts per day were completed safely and on time. 

It was asserted that the Worker’s position is not comparable to the role of the bin truck drivers included as part of the 1998 General Operative Agreement because he does not have a route and does not have the same demands for lifts as outlined in the agreement.  In addition, he also carries out other General Operative duties that does not require him to drive the bin truck. This includes general tidying.

Having carefully considered the submissions of both parties, I am satisfied that the role fulfilled by the Worker in the instant case is not comparable to that of the drivers included in the 1998 General Operatives Agreement. Specifically, the bin drivers in that agreement were employed solely to collect high volumes of waste across the city and were given specific targets to meet while the Worker in the instant case was not assigned such objectives.

Given that these targets were included in the agreement and that the Worker in the instant case did not have to meet these as part of his role, it is not reasonable to suggest that he is covered by the agreement and I find therefore that the pay rates included in the agreement do not have to apply to him. Accordingly, there is no question of a retrospective payment.

I cannot make a recommendation in favour of the Worker for the reasons outlined above.

Retrospective pay;