Worker

Employer

Anonymised Parties

A Sales Assistant

A Retail Multiple Store

Representatives

Mandate Trade Union

Arthur Cox Solicitors

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-00020622-001

18/07/2018

The Employer is a retail multiple store with a number of different branches in Ireland. The Worker has been employed by the Employer since 21 July, 1997 and is currently working in the role of Store Colleague. The Employer undertook a process of restructuring in 2015 and the position of Supervisor has been replaced by the role of Team Leader. The Worker chose not to map over to the role of Team Leader as part of the restructuring process and took up the role of Store Colleague. The Worker is currently paid at a rate of €14.42 and has sought a pay increase of €1.08 per hour to bring her hourly rate to €15.50.

The Employer refuses to accede to the Worker’s request for a pay increase on the basis that she has refused to map over from her current role of Store Colleague to Team Leader. The Worker has exhausted the internal grievance procedures in relation to this dispute and has sought to have the matter investigated as a trade dispute under the provisions of Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969.

The Worker submits that she started working as a Sales Assistant with the Employer in 1997 and was promoted to a Supervisory role in 2005 and her current pay is €14.42 per hour. From 2009 (when National Wage Agreements ceased) to 2015, she received no pay increase. In 2015 she received a 1% (14c per hour) increase – all staff received this. She had 3 Pay Reviews – 2016, 2017 and 2018 – these yielded no increases while other staff got increases. She got an increase of 10c per hour in 2019. In 2020, the Worker received an increase of 14c per hour. In 2021, she received an increase of 28c per hour.

The Worker submits was led to believe that she would get no increase until others had “caught up” with her and that any available money for pay increases would go to the lower paid. The Worker lodged a formal grievance on 31st July 2019.  The outcome of her grievance was that the Company refused to increase her hourly rate from €14 to €15 per hour on the basis that the top rate being paid in 2019 was €12.90 per hour.

The Worker appealed this decision on the following grounds:

·       She does not accept that 2 pay increases totalling 24c per hour in the past 10 years is fair or just.

·       If the top rate of pay is currently €13.02 per hour, it suggests that she will not receive any pay increase again if she retires at due date in 2023/2024 as pay reviews on average are 10c or 20c per hour yearly. 

·       She has given her all to the Company in the past 22 years and has gone over and above her duty to help customers, colleagues and management teams.

The Worker made the following submission in support of her position in relation to the dispute:

·       She regularly works in the cash office and on occasion has acted as manager and has product experience in a number of different areas of the business.

·       She has, on many occasions, travelled to other stores on behalf of customers, to source products not available in the store where she is located.  She has done so in her own time and at her own expense.

·       She was, for a number of years the store representative on the Colleague Committee (voted on by colleagues) which met in Dublin twice annually to discuss store performance etc.

·       She is trained as a First Aid Responder and is the store Manual Handling Trainer.

·       She is a loyal, dedicated, and hardworking employee.

·       Her treatment by the Employer in relation to her pay is unfair and totally unacceptable and believes that she merits an increase of €1.08 to increase her hourly rate to €15.50 per hour backdated for 24 months.

The Employer’s submissions in support f its position in relation to this dispute can be summarised as follows:

·       The Worker had the opportunity to map over from Supervisor to Team Leader when the Employer carried out its role restructuring exercise in 2015 and the commensurate introduction of a formal pay structure across all of its stores including the store where the Worker was located. The Employer consulted with the Worker who declined to map over to Team Leader. She therefore assumed the role of Store Colleague; however, her pay was red circled at €13.90 per hour placing her above the hourly rate of other colleagues, with comparable length of service, which at that time was €10.15 per hour.

·       A seven-point scale was introduced by the Employer for Store Colleagues’ pay in 2016. Entry level colleagues were employed on Point 1 of the scale, at an hourly rate of €9.15 with Store Colleagues on Point 7 of the scale earning an hourly rate of €11.50. Colleagues move up on the scale as their length of service with the Company increases. As of 2021, Colleagues on Point 1 of the scale are on an hourly rate of €10.50 with Colleagues on Point 7 on an hourly rate of €13.91.

·       The Employer needs to operate within pay scales and the Worker’s pay (€14.42 per hour) is above the Colleague scale and currently exceeds Point 7 of the scale by €0.51. Concession of this claim would result in a further divergence between the Worker’s pay and that of her peers. It would also have the effect of setting a precedent for the Company, which aims to maintain rates of pay within its structured pay scales.

·       The Worker has received pay increases since she moved to Store Colleague in 2014. Her pay has been increased four times since 2015; from €13.76 to €14.42.

·       The Worker was offered a Team Leader role on more than one occasion; most recently by the Area Manager in her current store and with a commensurate increase of €800 per annum. It is submitted that this is a reasonable and appropriate response to her grievance. In 2015, Team Leaders on the Bottom Band earned €24,000 per annum with Team Leaders on the Top Band earning €37,200 per annum. As of 2021, this has increased to €30,200 per annum (Bottom Band) and €41,070 (Top Band). Had the Worker mapped over to the role of Team Leader, she would now be earning a basic annual salary of approximately €31,575 per annum.

·       In addition to the Worker’s hourly rate being red-circled, she also continues to receive private health insurance to the value of €1,300 per annum from the Company which is not a standard benefit offering for Colleagues. The Worker also retained her sick pay benefits which entitles her to sick pay from the first day of absence due to illness (whereas Colleagues do not receive sick pay until their fourth continuous day of absence due to illness).

·       In addition to the base pay increases that the Worker has received since moving to the role of Colleague in 2015, the Worker has benefitted from an entitlement to a mystery shopper bonus which was introduced in 2015 and a move in 2018 from being paid double time on a public holiday to now being paid double time and time in lieu for working on a public holiday. The Employer introduced a discretionary bonus scheme for Store Colleagues in 2015 and has steadily increased the tax-free amounts paid to colleagues each December under the Small Benefits Exemption to €500 in 2021.

I have carefully considered the extensive written and oral submissions made by the parties in relation to this dispute.

This dispute was referred to the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969 and, in essence, concerns a claim by the Worker that she has not been afforded the appropriate level of pay increases by her Employer over the last 10 years.

The Worker is currently carrying out the role of Store Colleague and is paid an hourly rate of €14.42. I note that the Worker assumed the role of Store Colleague in 2015 following a restructuring of the grade and pay structure by the Employer across all of its stores. The Worker was employed as a Supervisor at the material time of the restructuring in 2015 and this role was subsumed into the role of Team Leader as part of the restructuring process.

Following a process of consultation with management, the Worker declined to map across to the role of Team Leader as part of the restructuring process with the result that she assumed the role of Store Colleague with effect from 29 August, 2015. The Worker’s job description changed to Store Colleague at that juncture but all her other terms and conditions, including her pay, remained the same. The Worker’s rate of pay was red-circled on an hourly rate of €13.90 at that juncture and during the interim period between August, 2015 to the hearing in this matter her pay has been increased to her current hourly rate of €14.42.

The parties have fully exhausted the internal grievance procedures in an effort to resolve this dispute without reaching agreement. I note that the final stage of this process concluded following an appeal on 12 December, 2019 with a proposal from the Employer that there was a Team Leader role available for Worker at the store where she is currently based and that her pay would be increased by €800 which would have come into effect from 6 January, 2020. I note that the Worker declined to accept this proposal as a resolution to the within dispute and has continued to work in her current role as Store Colleague thereafter until the current point in time.

Having carefully considered the positions of both parties in relation to this matter, it is clear that there is a divergence between the Worker’s current rate of pay and that of her peers on the highest point of the pay scale for Store Colleagues. I note the Employer’s position that the concession of any further pay increases to the Worker in her current grade would result in a further divergence in this regard with the possible implications for disharmony within the current structures of its existing pay scales. I am also mindful of the fact that the Employer has acknowledged that the Worker has been an exemplary employee and has made a significant contribution to the business during the period of her tenure.

I recommend that the Worker should be offered the role of Team Leader in her current store and be placed on the point of the pay scale for this position which is equivalent to a basic annual salary of €31,575. The appointment to the role of Team Leader should take effect from the date of this recommendation. The Worker should also be paid an additional sum as a gesture of goodwill equivalent to the difference in the hourly rate in her current position and the aforementioned point on the Team Leader scale for the period between 1 January, 2021 and the date of this recommendation should she decide to accept the offer take up the position of Team Leader.  

I recommend that the Worker should be offered the role of Team Leader in her current store and be placed on the point of the pay scale for this position which is equivalent to a basic annual salary of €31,575. The appointment to the role of Team Leader should take effect from the date of this recommendation. The Worker should also be paid an additional sum as a gesture of goodwill equivalent to the difference in the hourly rate in her current position and the aforementioned point on the Team Leader scale for the period between 1 January, 2021 and the date of this recommendation should she decide to accept the offer take up the position of Team Leader.  

Industrial Relations Act 1969 – Section 13 – Trade Dispute – Pay