Worker

Employer

Anonymised Parties

A receptionist

A service provider

Representatives

Victoria Stephens SIPTU

In-house HR consultant

Act

Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Dispute to the Workplace Relations Commission pursuant to section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act

CA-00043883-001

05/05/2021

The worker commenced as receptionist on the 19th October 2019 on a temporary basis for 4 weeks and was kept on. She was given a contract on the 13th November 2019. The worker was encompassed by an agreement signed with the union to apply to all reception staff. The worker was unclear as to what probation terms applied to her as the contract of employment did not mention probation. Her contract was the same as her colleagues.

The worker learnt that the pay of the other receptionists increased from €11 to €11.30 but this increase was not applied to her. It came into force on the 1st December 2019 and was backdated. The worker sought that it be backdated to the commencement of her employment. The complainant was paid the extra 30 cent per hour on the 27th November 2020.

The worker raised this internally and then referred this dispute. Her employment ended on the 13th September 2021.

In reply to the employer, the worker said that the respondent’s letter referred to all reception staff and did not distinguish the worker. The employee handbook she had seen did not mention probation.

The employer outlined that the worker was initially recruited as cover, and it was agreed she would be paid €11 per hour. There were ongoing discussions between the union and the employer regarding reception staff. On the 4th November, the Managing Director stated that the pay for receptionists would increase by 30 cent per hour. The worker sought to have the 30 cent per hour applied to her. They engaged with the worker and outlined that there was no set rate of pay for receptionists. The fact that other members got an uplift did not mean that she was entitled to it. The employer was within its rights to say yes or no as it was not legally binding.

The employer contacted the client to see if the uplift could apply to the worker and the client gave a firm ‘no’. Allowing this increase could create a precedent. While the contract does not mention probation, this was referenced in the employee handbook.

For a new entrant today, the respondent agreed a rate of pay with the client and it is the client who selects the rate of pay. It could not face pay claims from new entrants and must be able to rely on the rate of pay agreed with the client. No member of staff within the first six months of employment gets an uplift.

This is a dispute pursuant to the Industrial Relations Act regarding a 30 cent uplift claimed by the worker for the period of the 9th October 2019 to the 27th November 2020. The worker raised this internally and the internal process completed. The employer outlined that the worker was not encompassed by the 30 cent increase introduced in 2019. The worker claims that she should be paid €677.10, being the shortfall of 30 cents for the hours she worked in the above period.

The employer stated that the worker was a new hire and not encompassed by any increase. This would be a matter to be agreed with the client. It is concerned by any precedent.

Having considered the submissions of the parties, I find that the worker was encompassed in the 30 cent rise in late 2019. There is nothing in her contract or any other document presented to the hearing that says otherwise. There was a collective process, encompassing the worker. The respondent letter does not distinguish the worker’s situation and nor could this inference be made.

I recommend that the employer pay to the worker the amount sought of €677.10. This arises from the facts and documentation of only this case and these circumstances.

CA-00043883-001

I recommend that the employer pay to the worker €677.10.

Industrial Relations Act