Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

Administrative officer

Third level institution

Representatives

Peter Glynn SIPTU

 Employer representatives

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-00034647-001

14/02/2020

The worker commenced employment with the employer in 2004. Since 2019 he has held the post of an Administration Officer. His current monthly salary is €3500.  Previously, from 2007 -2019, he was employed as a Supervisor, Senior Laboratory Attendant Group for which his contract provided for a supervisor’s allowance of 20% of salary. This was reduced unilaterally to 10% on 29 March 2007.

To compensate him for this loss he is seeking to move from the 4th to the 6th point of the administrative officer’s incremental scale. He is also seeking retrospection.

His efforts within the workplace to resolve the matter came to nought.

The worker commenced his employment with the employer in December 2004. He assumed the position of Senior Laboratory Attendant in 2006. In March 2007 he applied for and was appointed to the post of Supervisor Senior Laboratory Attendant Group.

In May 2019 he was appointed to the position of Administrative Officer, Grade 3

In May 2019 the worker sought and obtained a copy of the contract dated 15 March 2007 pertaining to his previous role as Supervisor, Senior Laboratory Attendant Group. HR advised the worker in September 2019 of the error in the calculation of the allowance due to him  March 2007. He discovered that the terms of the contract offered to him in 15 March 2007 which provided for a Supervisor’s allowance of 20% had been unilaterally amended on 29 June 2007 and the allowance had been reduced from 20% to 10%. He had not received a copy of the amended contract.

The worker maintains that employer should honour their contractual obligations to him as set out in the contract of 15 March 2007. The worker submits that he should be moved from the 4th to the 6th point of the Administrative Officer’s incremental scale to make good the loss sustained by him since 2007.

He failed to resolve the issue with HR.

The worker was promoted to the post of Supervisor of the Senior Laboratory Attendant group in March 2007. He was provided with a contract on 15 March 2007 which set out his salary plus a shift allowance of 16.7%, but in addition, and mistakenly, stated that he would receive a Supervisor’s allowance of 20% of salary. Later that month when this error was discovered the then Deputy Director of the worker’s department told the worker of the error and that the normal 10% supervisory allowance would apply from 26 March 2007. He confirmed this in an email to HR on 22 March 2007 which states that he had spoken to the worker. This was set out in an amended contract to the worker on 29 June 2007.The university is obliged to correct any errors.

The correct allowance of 10 % of salary was applied from the 26 March onwards.

In May 2019 the worker attained an administrative officer role and raised the matter of the change to his supervisor’s allowance.

There is no Supervisor/Team Leader/ Chargehand allowance at the value of 20% of salary within the college. The norm is 10%. This complies with the Department of Public Expenditure regulations.

The worker never raised the matter until September 2019 when discussions commenced on the correct point of the administrative officer scale to which he should be assimilated.

The employer asks that the claim be rejected.

The worker signed a contract offering him a 20% supervisor’s allowance. He did not sign the amended contract of 29 June 2007, reducing the allowance to 10%.

What is not contested is the fact that there was no allowance for 20% in the range of centrally agreed allowances for college employees. It was given in error and lasted for 26 days only.

It is not contested that the university verbally advised the worker that they had mistakenly awarded an allowance of 20% of salary instead of an allowance of 10%. They failed to acquire the worker’s signature to the amended contract, issued to him on 29 June 2007.

But there is no doubt that the worker knew that the rate of 10% and not 20% is what went into his pay cheque as the gross difference between the two rates amounted to €57 per week.

In all of the circumstances, I do not consider it appropriate to accede to an effort to capitalise on an error made in 2007, for which no benefit extended beyond the 26 March 2007. No reliance can be made on a loss at such a remove.

I do not recommend that the arrangements for his salary point should be influenced by an error which has lain undisturbed from 2007 to 2019. Nor do I recommend the payment of any retrospection.

 I do not find the worker’s request to move him from the 4th to the 6th point of the incremental scale for Administrative Officers to have merit.

I do not find the worker’s request to move him from the 4th to the 6th point of the incremental scale for Administrative Officers to have merit.

IR; salary claim; correction of an earlier mistake.