ADJUDICATION OFFICER RECOMMENDATION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00030369
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Anonymised Parties | Driver Samplers | A city council |
Representatives | Jay Power SIPTU | Ciaran Boylan ER Human Resources |
Complaints:
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-00039559-001 | 02/09/2020 |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969 | CA-00039560-001 | 02/09/2020 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 03/06/2021
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: John Harraghy
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Acts 1969 following the referral of the dispute(s) to me by the Director General, I inquired into the dispute(s) and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the dispute(s).
The matter was heard by way of remote hearing pursuant to the Civil Law and Criminal Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2020 and S.I. 359/2020, which designated the WRC as a body empowered to hold remote hearings.
At the outset of the hearing I addressed the issue of the jurisdiction of an Adjudication Officer in relation to this dispute. It was confirmed by the employee’s representative that the dispute encompassed at least six workers. The matter in dispute was parity with another grade. It was confirmed that this had the potential to increase the salary of the employees from €12,000 to €15,000. The employee’s representative said that this could be a “test case”.
Background:
This is a claim relating to six employees in a Driver Sampler unit of the council. They are seeking parity with the Driver Sampler from the Council’s laboratory who is remunerated at grade 5 officer level. |
Summary of Employee’s Case:
The position within the Council’s Laboratory was newly created in May 2019 and had a different rate of pay. The employee’s claim that many of their duties are similar and submitted a detailed analysis of these. It was submitted on their behalf that there were sufficient similarities to merit a job evaluation. The other grade carries a significant pay differential, increased annual leave, better pension terms and improved access to promotional opportunities. The trade union on behalf of this members sought and held many meetings at local level. It is their belief that the employer’s refusal to have the posts evaluated is unreasonable. |
Summary of Employers Case:
The employees involved in this dispute are employed as general operatives and subject to the terms and conditions appropriate to that grade. Their duties are properly aligned to those associated with that grade. Their pay rate is analogous to the grade iv administrative pay scale. There are significant differences with the role attached to the Laboratory. The responsibilities of the role in the laboratory as such that it merits the rate of pay that was applied to the post. If this claim were allowed, it would mean that the employees would be paid higher than their Inspector and furthermore would open the door for any employee that felt that their role was comparable to those in another grading structure. This is clearly a collective claim and would inevitably lead to further claims. |
Findings and Conclusions:
Having reviewed the significant submissions made on behalf of the employees and employer I find that this dispute is connected with the rates of pay for a body of workers. A recent Labour Court decision, LCR22370, noted “Section 13(2) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969 precludes an Adjudication Officer from investigating a trade dispute that is connected with the rates of pay of a body of workers. For the reasons set out above the Court is satisfied that the subject matter of this dispute comes within that prohibition.” Having regard to the provisions of Section 13 (2) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969 I note: 13(2) Subject to the provisions of this section, where a trade dispute (other than a dispute connected with rates of pay of, hours or times of work of, or annual holidays of, a body of workers) exists or is apprehended and involves workers within the meaning of Part VI of the Principal Act, a partly to the dispute may refer it to a rights commissioner.” In those circumstances I do not have jurisdiction in this matter. |
Recommendation
Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Acts, 1969 requires that I make a recommendation in relation to the dispute.
As this is a trade dispute that is connected with the rates of pay of a body of workers I do not have jurisdiction to investigate the matter. |
Dated: July 12th 2021
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: John Harraghy
Key Words:
Rates of pay. Body of workers. Trade dispute. Jurisdiction. |