Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

A Porter

A Health Care Provider

Representatives

Dave Curran SIPTU

Valerie Madigan Employee Relations Manager

Act

   Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969

CA-00035439-001

25/03/2020

The Worker has worked as a Porter by a health care centre since 1999. He is paid €2752.50 monthly and he works a 40 hour week. The dispute is taken under the Industrial Relations Act 1969 and the worker is complaining that he has been paid less than a co-worker over a period of many years despite them performing the same job/duties.

The Worker has worked as a Porter in a HC since 1999 and he has also covered for colleagues on leave in a HC now closed and later in another HC. The Worker performs a range of porter as well as sundry clerical duties including, covering reception, telephone queries, taking messages, assisting at clinics, assisting with appointments, providing information etc. The Worker has had numerous letters of commendation in relation to his interactions with clients and members of the public over the years.

A person, Ms. A was appointed as Porter another HC in 2002 and in 2009 she moved to another HC, where she would continue to work until she retired in 2015.

 The Worker said that he carried out Ms A’s induction when she started. In approximately 2009/2010 the Worker became aware that his colleague Ms. A was being paid at a higher rate than he was, despite performing the same role he was performing.

The Worker said that there was a difference of approximately €3000 per year in the wages. He raised the issue with Human Resources during 2013-2016 and a series of meetings took place with the Employer.

He said that he did not receive a satisfactory response to his queries and so he continued to raise the issue. In August 2017 he met with the Industrial Relations Manager about the issue.

The IR Manager wrote to the Worker in January 2018 and explained that Ms. A had been taken on the role of Attendant when she moved HC in 2009.

The Worker also filled in the necessary job evaluation forms in 2017 and submitted these to management and continued to correspond with management on this issue between 2017 and 2019.

He lodged a formal grievance in 2019 and attended a grievance hearing on 4th June 2019. During this hearing he submitted documentation which Ms. A had given him showing that she had been employed as a Porter when she started in the HC. He argued that as the two individuals had been performing the same role, it was highly unfair that he had been paid less than she was over an extended period. He requested that his pay be amended in line with Ms. A’s salary, and that this be retrospectively applied.

The Worker was informed by letter on 24th July 2019 that his grievance was not successful. The grievance outcome stated that according to the internal investigation Ms. A had been employed as an Attendant since the beginning of her employment, and that this was the reason for any pay difference between the two of them.

The Worker appealed the decision and an appeal hearing was held on 10th July 2019. He was informed on 10th October 2019 that his appeal was not successful. The appeal outcome letter also stated that Ms. A had been employed as an Attendant since her appointment in 2001. It stated in the letter from Industrial Relations Manager in 2018 that Ms. A received additional training in computer systems and managed the systems for Physiotherapists and Occupational Therapists. Furthermore, that she covered reception and continued to provide porter duties in a very busy HC.

The Worker disputed these points and had highlighted during the grievance process that his HC centre is busier than both the other two centres. He understands that HC centre has 30+ staff whereas his HC has 50.

Union submission

The Worker has worked in the same position as a colleague for 20 years, performing the same role, and yet he has been paid significantly less, amounting to approximately €3000 per year.  It is acknowledged that the Workers current rate of pay is in line with the salary scales for the role of Porter.

The Worker feels aggrieved to learn about this discrepancy. This has been exacerbated by the fact that the conclusions of the employer’s investigation of this matter appear to conflict with the documentation which was provided to the Worker by Ms. A.

 The employer’s position is that Ms A had been employed as an Attendant since the beginning of her employment but the documentation states that she had been employed as a Porter.  Furthermore, the employer’s explanation appears to have changed over time. The worker had raised the issue a number of times between 2013-2016 with Human Resources, including at a meeting to discuss the matter. However, he was only informed that Ms. A was an Attendant in 2018 when the IR Manager issued her letter to him.

In the letter, it was stated that Ms. A was initially employed as a Porter, and then took up the role of Attendant upon her move to the HC centre in 2008.  However, in the subsequent correspondence, both the grievance outcome and appeal outcome letter state that she was employed as an Attendant since the beginning of her employment.

The contention that Ms. A received the additional training is disputed. Also, the claim that Ms. A made appointments for the specialists in the HC centre are disputed.

In conclusion, the union submitted that the Worker is a longstanding and dedicated employee of the Employer and It has been a source of great dissatisfaction that he discovered that a colleague who started after him, whom he has trained, and who apparently has performed the exact same role as he has, was paid significantly more than him. He has also taken issue with the unclear and conflicting explanations that he has been given by the employer for this discrepancy.

The Worker is seeking that he be granted pay parity with the comparator in question, and that this be applied retrospectively.

The Worker is employed by the Employer as a Porter in a HC since 10th June 1999. He also provides portering duties in other Centres to cover for staff on annual/sick leave.

He is claiming parity with a work colleague Ms A who was employed in a HC as an attendant since 2001. She is retired since 31/08/2015. She carried out all the duties of Reception/Porter in the HC until it closed, and the services moved to another HC in February 2009 and Ms A also moved with the services.

Throughout her employment Ms. A was employed as an Attendant and on the Attendant Pay scale. She did not receive a higher salary when she was reassigned to the new centre. Her title as a Porter in certain correspondence was incorrectly classified.

The Worker is employed as a porter in a Health Centre where there are three Grade III's and a Grade IV and they provide clerical/administrative support for the Primary Care teams Speech and Language/Occupational Therapists, Public Health Nurses, Dentists and Medical Officers. In Ms. A’s HC there is a greater need for administrative support to be provided by the Attendant. The administration is currently being carried out by a Grade III since Ms. A's retirement.

The Worker made a complaint to his line manager on 28/01/2019. His line manager met with him informally on 15/02/2019 and asked him to put his specific complaint in writing under the Grievance Policy. The complaint was received by his line manager on 08/04/2019.

A Stage II Grievance hearing was held on 4th June 2019 by the General Manager and the Worker was advised in writing on 24th July 2019 of the outcome. The core issues raised by the Worker related to the difference in the salary paid to him in respect of his role and duties as a Porter he performed at the HC versus the higher salary paid to Ms A and the duties performed by her at a different HC. It was pointed out to the Worker that in terms of the salary differential between him and Ms A can be explained by the fact that the at the time receptionist and portering duties would normally have been carried out in Ms A’s HC by a Clerical Administrative staff member, but Ms A who had been employed as an Attendant was asked to carry out the various duties associated with this post, such as receptionist duties, managing clinics as well as portering and other associated duties. The salary scale for an Attendant is greater than that of a Porter, this would account for Ms A’s higher rate of pay. The Worker was advised that the most appropriate way of advancing these issues would be through the relevant Job Evaluation process.

The Worker was not satisfied with the response from the Stage Il hearing and a Stage Ill Grievance Hearing was held on 19th September 2019 by Corporate Employee Relations. The claim was rejected, and the Worker was advised in writing on 7th October 2019 that comparator employed may have been performing a similar role, but that staff member was employed as an Attendant from their start and held a higher rate of pay than that of Porter.

As part of a national process to streamline the grading system currently both the grade of Attendant and Porter are remunerated at the same level.

In conclusion, it was submitted that the Worker has been employed as a Porter and is correctly remunerated on the porter scale and asks that the claim be rejected.

The Worker is claiming pay parity and back money and disputes the Employers contention that his comparator Ms A was employed as an Attendant which has a higher pay scale than the grade of Porter. I note that the Attendant and Porter grades are now on the same pay scale. I am satisfied that Ms A was employed as an Attendant for the duration of her employment and was therefore on a higher rate of pay than the Worker. Also, this is a cost increasing claim as there are Porters employed by the Employer in a number of other HCs which may give rise to further pay claims. For these reasons I do not recommend concession of the claim.     

 I do not recommend concession of the claim.     

Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Acts, 1969, porter and attendant pay parity claim.