Investigation Recommendation Reference: ADJ-00036787
Parties:
| Worker | Employer |
Anonymised Parties | A Worker | A State funded Employment Support Service |
Representatives | Peter Glynn SIPTU | William Wall Peninsula |
Dispute(s):
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-00048030 | 07/01/2022 |
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Emile Daly
Date of Hearing: 25/10/2023
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969 (as amended)following the referral of the dispute to me by the Director General, I inquired into the dispute and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any information relevant to the dispute.
Background:
This is a dispute over like work and unequal treatment |
Summary of Workers Case:
The Worker worked for the Employer as a Job Coach. Her co-workers who did similar or like work had more favourable terms and conditions than the Worker. This dispute is an attempt to remedy that disparity. |
Summary of Employer’s Case:
The Employer acknowledges that there is an ongoing issue about job coaches who do like work to other employees, but enjoy less favourable terms and conditions of employment. The Employer contends however that it is an organisation which is fully reliant on State funding and therefore, without additional funds being provided, the remedy sought by the Worker cannot be met. |
Conclusions:
In conducting my investigation, I have taken into account all relevant submissions presented to me by the parties.
In terms of the salary scale attaching to the role of job coach, I note that it is the Employer’s decision as to where the Worker stands in relation to the scale upon commencement of the employment. There are points attaching to the salary and upon the length of employment of the worker climbs the salary scale until they reach the top of same.
In 2019, the Employer recruited two Job Coaches and placed then on a higher point of the Job Coach Scale.
The Worker carried out a similar role to the new recruits. The Worker’s salary was at a different point on the incremental scale applicable to the role.
The terms and conditions of employment attaching to the role of Job Coach after 2012, did not reflect those contained within the Job Coach contract pre-2012 for like work. The Worker raised a grievance in January 2020 with the Employer. In January 2021, the Worker was placed on Point 7 of the scale, by this time the other new employees had moved up the scale.
The Union representing the Worker sought parity for the Worker and other of its members to reflect the benefits in the pre-2012 contract of employment for Job Coaches. The contract proposed a 35-hour week from 39 hours, paid maternity leave, paid sick leave from 2 weeks up to 13 weeks, 4 uncertified sick days to 6 uncertified days, holiday entitlement increased from 20 to 25 plus additional 3 incremental leave days subject to funding. On behalf of the Worker the Union sought paid maternity leave, 13 weeks half paid sick pay, similar to the contract of her other work colleagues. |
Recommendation:
Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969 requires that I make a recommendation in relation to the dispute.
The parties agree that the current funding position effects the Worker adversely because despite carrying out a similar role, her terms and conditions were/are not the same as the other workers doing like or similar work. The parties acknowledge that, subject to state funding, the Employer is prepared to consider these anomalies, in so far as it can.
I recommend that the Employer takes steps, including requesting that State funding be provided, to remedy the anomalous situation where the Worker who works as a Job Coach was/is on different and less advantageous employment terms and conditions as compared with other workers, doing like or similar work, employed by the Employer.
Dated: 02/11/2023
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Emile Daly