Worker

Employer

Anonymised Parties

A Worker

A Health Service Provider

Act

Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969

IR - SC - 00001135

28/02/2023

This dispute concerns starting pay on promotion.  It is the worker’s case that three fixed allowances should have been included in determining the rate of pay on promotion. The employer states that fixed allowances are not included in calculating the rate of pay on promotion. The employer confirmed to the hearing that all internal procedures for the resolution of an individual dispute had been exhausted in this case.

The worker was employed as a craftworker for 16 years prior to being promoted. As a craftworker he was in receipt of three ‘fixed allowances’ and he earned regular over-time (which is classed as ‘variable’ pay). The worker stated that his average take home pay was €64,000.

In July 2022 the worker expressed an interest in the vacancy for Technical Services Manager. He went through the selection process and was offered the position on 21 September 2022 but then queried his starting salary of €51,855 for the role (point one of the salary scale). This was considerably less than what he was accustomed to earning as a craftworker and the worker stated that, in his naivety, he assumed the three fixed allowances would be included in determining what his rate of pay would be on promotion. The worker commenced working in the role in October 2022. If all the fixed allowances were considered for pay on promotion, he would have been placed at point 3 on the salary scale in October 2022.

On querying the matter, the National Recruitment Service (NRS) stated that one of the allowances could be included for determining the worker’s pay on promotion but not the other two allowances. The worker then queried the practice of permitting one fixed allowance to be included but not the other two. To date he has not received an answer to that query. The worker also pursued the matter of incremental credits as an alternative, however, he accepted at the hearing that this was not possible, and that he would be satisfied if the other two fixed allowances were included to determine his pay on promotion.

The worker submitted Circular 8/2018 in support of his dispute which provides that if a worker is in receipt of fixed allowances for at least one year, these allowances will be considered for pay on promotion purposes. The worker gave one example of a colleague “Mr X” who was permitted to have fixed allowances included in his pay on promotion.

The worker acknowledged that his current role does not involve being on-call, working shifts or over-time and that his weekly contracted hours are now less than that of his previous role.

Starting pay on promotion is governed by the Department of Health “DOH” Circular 10/71. It is not the policy or practice of the employer to include fixed allowances in starter pay on promotion. On investigating this dispute for the purposes of the hearing, the employer established that the NRS permitted the inclusion of one of the allowances in the worker’s pay on promotion. This was done in error and an explanation was outlined to the hearing as to why this happened. The employer outlined the unique circumstances that led to the decision to include fixed allowances in Mr X’s pay.

The employer stated that Circular 8/2019 does not apply to public servants.

The vacancy for Technical Services Manager was advertised with a Grade Code 5070, with a minimum salary of €51,855. The worker was aware of these terms and signed the contract on 22 September 2022. The contract issued to the worker had the correct salary scale and confirmed the worker’s appointment to the appropriate point on the scale as per DOH Circular 10/71. The employer outlined to the hearing the reasons why the cases ADJ-00034036; ADJ-00004318; CA-00006052; and ADJ-00003522 referenced by the worker were not relevant to the worker’s dispute.

The employer concluded that any concession or positive ruling for the worker would have far reaching implications in relation to the calculation of pay on promotion as there are innumerable staff who enjoy various allowances in their current roles and accept the terms applying to promotion.

In conducting my investigation, I have considered all relevant submissions presented to me by the parties.

The employer opened Circular 10/71 which shows that only basic pay is considered for pay on promotion for this category of worker. I accept that the inclusion of allowances for Mr X was done on a red circled basis and because of the unique challenges faced by the employer at that time. Further, as requested by me at the hearing, National Employee Relations confirmed in writing that Circular 8/2019, which references both civil and public servants, has not been introduced in respect of public servants employed in the public health service, and is applicable to civil servants only. I also accept that any concession of this dispute may have far reaching implications in relation to the calculation of pay on promotion for other workers. 

The worker said he was aware of the salary for the promotional post, and that it had crossed his mind that he could be financially worse off on promotion, but that now this was a difficult concept to get his mind around. I accept that it is unusual that a promotion would result in a loss of earnings, but this is not unheard of if the totality of the benefits conferred by the promotion are viewed holistically.  The worker told me that his promotion has brought considerable non-financial benefits including no longer being required to be on-call; or to work shifts or weekends; and shorter contracted weekly working hours. The position was advertised in May and the worker started the role in October. The worker confirmed to me that at no time prior to commencing in the role did he check how the promotion would affect his earnings. The worker told the hearing that he was actively seeking promotion for five years. The position of Technical Services Manager was a great opportunity for him, and he did not want to give it up as it was unusual for a craft worker to progress directly to a management role (skipping 3 grades).

I feel the worker was so focused on the excellent promotional opportunity and the benefits for his work-life balance, that he failed to do due diligence in relation to the pay for the role before he accepted the position. Circular 10/71 (Starting Pay on Promotion) does not provide for the inclusion of allowances in determining starting pay on promotion. I recommend that the worker accepts that at least one of the three fixed allowances was considered for pay on promotion in his case which is not normal practice; and that the role he has been promoted into, which he acknowledges is a great opportunity, be viewed by him as taking a financial step backwards to make a considerable leap forward in his overall career and work-life balance.

For the reasons set out above I do not recommend in favour of the worker in respect of this dispute.

Pay on promotion. Inclusion of allowances.