ADJUDICATION OFFICER Recommendation on dispute under Industrial Relations Act 1969
Investigation Recommendation Reference: IR - SC - 00002556
Parties:
| Worker | Employer |
Anonymised Parties | A Worker | A health services provider |
Representatives | Michael Kerrigan Fórsa Trade Union |
|
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 | IR - SC - 00002556 | 29/04/2024 |
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Conor Stokes
Date of Hearing: 09/08/2024
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 matter was heard by way of remote hearing pursuant to the Civil Law and Criminal Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 2020 and S.I. No. 359/2020 which designates the WRC as a body empowered to hold remote hearings. |
Summary of Workers Case:
The worker submitted that she was appointed to a Director of Psychology role with effect from 18 Feb 2015. However, although it was a higher role, she never received the associated salary at code 3662 level. She was not appointed in an acting capacity and her colleagues in the region were notified of her appointment without mention of an acting or temporary capacity. |
Summary of Employer’s Case:
The employer noted that the worker was undertaking the Director role but that no authorisation to pay the higher level of salary exists. It noted that the person who was dealing with mater at that time no longer work for them. The employer confirmed that the worker was employed in the Director level role. |
Conclusions:
In conducting my investigation, I have taken into account all relevant submissions presented to me by the parties. The parties confirmed that the worker was employed in a director level role at code 3662 however the employer noted that no authorisation exists to pay the worker at the higher level of remuneration. There is no dispute that the worker carried out her duties diligently and at the director level. The role was not a position on an acting nor temporary basis. There is no dispute that the worker was appointed to a substantive role, not least because no one currently employed in the HR/ER function was in place at the time of the appointment. Other than the email notifying her colleagues of her appointment to the role, no paper work is available regarding the role. Therefore the worker is entitled to be paid the appropriate rate for the role to which she was appointed. The dispute revolves around the appointment of this individual to that role and the salary associated with the specific role. |
Recommendation:
Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969 requires that I make a recommendation in relation to the dispute.
I recommend that the pay, pension and lump sum entitlements should be recalculated to reflect the role the worker undertook and she should be paid at the higher rate associated with code 3662 with effect from 18 February 2015.
Dated: 09-08-2024
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Conor Stokes
Key Words:
IR dispute – rate of pay associated with a specific role – pay, pension and lump sum entitlements to be recalculated. |