FULL RECOMMENDATION
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : COPE FOUNDATION (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION) DIVISION :
SUBJECT: 1.Re-Grading of Quality Development Manager's Position.
COMPANY ARGUMENTS: - The Company state that
RECOMMENDATION: The issue in dispute between the parties relates to the Worker’s rate of pay. The Worker was appointed to his current position on the 8th August 2018. In early February 2019 the Worker on foot of a conversation with a worker from another organisation who he believed carried out a similar role to his but had responsibility for less service users and staff than he had, contacted his Union as he believed he was on the wrong rate of pay. The worker from the other organisation was in receipt of a higher rate of pay. The Union in March 2019 sought a meeting with the Employer to discuss his claim which was that his responsibilities had expanded to 164 service users and 30 staff and on that basis, he was seeking to be paid at Grade VII level. A meeting was held on the 20th January 2020 to discuss the claim and the Employer responded by letter of 11th March 2020 advising that the Worker is paid on the Workshop Manager (Specialist Agency) salary scale which is the appropriate rate for his job. The letter also stated that there was no job evaluation scheme available for this cohort of worker. The Worker appealed this decision but was unsuccessful in his appeal the issue was referred to conciliation and then on to the Labour Court. The Worker has looked at roles in other organisations which have a higher rate of pay and it was his submission that he did similar work. The Employer submitted that the Worker at the time he took up the position knew the duties and the pay rate attached to the position and he accepted the position on that basis. It is the Employer’s submission that in January 2020 the Worker through his trade union submitted a request for a pay review. The Employer responded in March 2020 advising that the Worker’s role was a Workshop Manager, and that the Employer was bound by the consolidated scales which had been agreed in 2004 with the Unions. The Employer also pointed to the fact that the claim was for a grade that did not exist within the organisation structure i.e., a grade above Workshop Manager grade. It was their submission that if this claim was conceded it would have a knock-on effect on a national basis as it would be creating a new grade within the structure. It was the Employer’s position that no higher pay scale existed in the consolidated pay scales. The Employer also submitted that it was a cost increasing claim and therefore in breach of the latest Public Service Agreement. The Court having carefully read both parties submissions and listened carefully to the arguments on the day does not recommend concession of the Worker’s claim. The Court so recommends.
NOTE Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Noel Jordan, Court Secretary. |
