Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

A Manager

A State Agency

Representatives

Lisa Connell Fórsa Trade Union

 Kim Hayes

Act

Complaint/Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Industrial Relations Act 1969

CA-00047396-001

30/11/2021

The complainant seeks the application of an allowance which was paid to a number of his colleagues who performed IR (Industrial Relations) duties which he himself also performed but for which he did not receive payment.

The complainant commenced employment in March 1979.    He was Regional Business Manager at General Manager grade.  He was then employed as HR Manager with responsibility for Region S at GM grade.  In late 2021 he became aware that an IR allowance was being paid to a number of his colleagues who were also HR Managers.  He sought the application of this allowance based on taking on and completing the same duties and responsibilities as his colleagues.   Payment of the allowance was refused and he then progressed a grievance in line with the formal grievance policy which was not upheld.  The matter was then referred to the WRC. 

The background is that in August 2014, the complainant took on the duties of a colleague (Grade VIII) who retired at that time.  This meant he assumed the responsibility of the HR role and this was subsumed into his post as Regional Business Manager.  He retired in January 2022.  During 2021, prior to his retirement he became aware that an IR allowance was being paid to his counterpart HR Manager colleagues.   His colleagues were employed both at Grade VIII and General Manager grades.  They were in receipt of the allowance for completing and engaging in IR matters in their capacity as HR Manager.   The allowance was paid as an annualised allowance equated to €3,520 for some managers and €9,500 per year for colleagues at the complainant’s grade and was paid through salaries.  The complainant never received the allowance while his equivalent colleagues across the country received the allowance for a number of years before it was bought out in the end of 2021.  It is argued that the complainant held a dual role, in good faith, including full responsibility for the role of HR Manager.  His colleagues received the IR allowance for their handling of IR cases and assuming the same level of responsibility.  It is argued that the complainant was treated less favourably than that of his colleagues.  There has been no substantiated reason provided by the respondent as to why some staff have been eligible for the IR allowance and others have not qualified.  It is submitted that the complainant completed the same duties as his comparator colleagues and was not remunerated accordingly.  The complainant seeks the loss of earnings for the amount of €9,500 per annum from 2014.  

The complainant raised a grievance on 26th August 2021, which was heard by the interim HR Director at stage 3 of the grievance procedure.  The grievance cited that the complainant had become aware that his colleagues at Regional HR Manager level were in receipt of the IR allowance.  The complainant was seeking the application of the allowance as he stated that he was undertaking the same role and he was being treated less favourably.  The allowance referred to in the grievance was €9,230 per annum.  The complainant carried out the role of HR manager since 2016 in addition to that of Regional Business Manager.  The awarding of the IR allowance to other HR managers was made by a previous Director of HR and there was no detail of the rationale available for this.                  However, the HR managers carrying out the same role as the complainant are at a different (lower) grade.  The complainant also referenced the application of the allowance to other General Managers.  At the time the IR allowance was under review and subsequently it was confirmed that the allowance is unsanctioned and has ceased for anyone in receipt of it.   The complainant’s grievance was not upheld for two reasons.  The allowance was not sanctioned and could not be applied and while the IR allowance had been initially sanctioned pre 2005, it ceased to apply to new incumbents in 2005.  The allowance would not be applicable to the complainant if it was permissible.   The respondent attached a note dated 24th June 2021 from the relevant authority which refused red circling of the allowance and directed the cessation of same from 1st November 2021.    

I note that due to no fault of the current management, the allowance seems to have been applied in an inconsistent way, leading to the complainant feeling naturally aggrieved and that he had been treated in an unfair manner.  However, by the time he pursued his grievance that some of his colleagues were in receipt of an IR allowance for performing the same or similar duties, the cessation of the allowance was in train.   While I cannot in these circumstances recommend the application or backdating of the allowance, I find that the complainant should be compensated for  the situation whereby certain members of management were treated more favourably than others.  I recommend that the complainant be compensated to the amount of what would constitute the buyout of the allowance had he held it.  I recommend that the respondent pay to the complainant the sum of €14,250.

Payment of an allowance.  Recommend compensation.