Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

A Worker

A State Body

Representatives

Denis Keane Forsa

 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-00044172-001

18/05/2021

The dispute concerns the non-application of a pay grade allowance to a Worker that was applied to two colleagues who were reassigned to work with her in a similar role.

Under a restructuring agreement in 2007, additional pay allowances were incorporated into the pay grades of a number of the Employer’s workers for taking on additional responsibilities. Specifically, the new allowance payable to those whose roles were directly impacted by the restructure was approximately €4,000 per annum greater than what other colleagues, such as the Worker in the instant dispute, received.

Two colleagues in receipt of this additional allowance were reassigned to the same team as the Worker in the instant dispute, who was herself assigned additional Project Team Leader responsibilities including training, coaching and leading the team but unlike her colleagues did not receive any additional payment.  This has resulted in a situation where the Worker has been paid a lower salary than her colleagues, despite carrying out similar duties.

The Worker’s pay has also not reflected the fact that she led a major IT project in 2008 to update the Client Information System and that she trained the system users nationwide in its new functions and procedures and provides ongoing support for the new structure.

The Worker’s representative also highlighted that the Employer’s 2007 change programme achieved circa €16 million in payroll savings and that the cost of bringing the Worker’s pay into line with her counterparts is very small.

An independent Evaluator was engaged to support the 2007 change programme that took place in the Employer’s organisation and found that twenty four administrative staff should be given an increased allowance commensurate with the additional duties and responsibilities that they would be assigned as a result of the restructure.

The Evaluator also found that because the restructure involved the elimination of six administrative staff roles, those impacted workers should be assigned to an alternative position and retain the increased allowance payable to the other eighteen staff on a “personal to holder” basis. Approval for the increased allowances was granted on the basis of cost savings from a suppressed Staff Officer post.

Two of the six staff whose roles were eliminated in the restructure were reassigned to work in the same area as the Worker and retained their increased allowance on a ‘personal-to-holder’ bases as set out in the independent Evaluator’s report, which had been agreed with all of the relevant parties, including the Worker’s union.

The Employer also highlighted that approval for the implementation of the increased allowance in respect of these two colleagues was on the basis of cost savings generated from the suppression of a Staff Officer vacancy arising within the units in 2006. In addition, the Employer stated that Paragraph 2.1.4 of the current Stability Agreement ‘Building Momentum’ makes it clear that no sectoral or grade-based claims for improvement to pay and conditions will be considered outside of this Sectoral Bargaining Fund process over the lifetime of the Agreement.

Finally, the Employer asserted that if the Worker wishes to move from her salary scale, she, will need to apply to for a Grade 4 position within the body.

I note in the first instance that the Worker in the within dispute worked alongside two of the six staff who were re-assigned by the Employer because their jobs disappeared following the restructure. Although all three were doing largely similar work, the Worker was paid approximately €4,000 less per annum because her two colleagues were in receipt of a new “personal to holder” allowance which was recommended by an independent evaluator following the merger.

Firstly and crucially, in my view, I note that approval for the implementation of the increased allowance in respect of the Worker’s two colleagues was given on the basis of cost savings generated from the suppression of a Staff Officer vacancy. In addition, I note that the Worker’s claim is cost increasing and therefore at odds with the prevailing ‘Building Momentum’ Agreement in the public sector, which stipulates that grade-based claims for improvement to pay and conditions cannot be considered.  

While it might appear to be unfair that the Worker’s two colleagues have received additional pay for doing similar work, it must also be recognised that any further pay increases outside of those provided for in the independent evaluator’s report would represent an unfair cost burden on the Employer given that any perceived unfairness should reasonably have been foreseen and raised by the union at the time prior to them agreeing with the report’s findings. 

Moreover, I must recognise the industrial relations chaos that would arise and the inevitable difficulties that would ensue should I make a recommendation that is favourable to the Worker. Specifically, such a recommendation would completely defeat the purpose and undermine the validity of any company-union agreements which are broadly speaking beneficial to both sides workers as well as employers and minimise industrial relations disharmony.

I cannot make a recommendation that is favourable to the Worker in respect of this dispute for the reasons outlined above.

Pay increase; agreements;