ADJUDICATION OFFICER Recommendation on dispute under Industrial Relations Act 1969
Investigation Recommendation Reference: IR - SC - 00002375
Parties:
| Worker | Employer |
Anonymised Parties | A Community Worker | A Community Youth Services Employer |
Representatives | A Trade Union | A HR Firm |
Dispute:
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 - 00002375 | 19/03/2024 |
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Gaye Cunningham
Date of Hearing: 21/10/2024
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:
The Worker claims that she is not paid the correct rate of pay in accordance with the provisions of her contract of employment.
Summary of Workers Case:
The Worker commenced her employment on 05/07/2023. Her contract of employment stated that she was on point 2 of X Scale. She therefore expected to receive increments on an annual basis subject to funding. However, this proved not to be the case. On her return from Maternity Leave in August 2023, she discovered that the employee who covered for her maternity leave was on a higher rate of pay. She seeks rectification of this and retrospection.
Summary of Employer’s Case:
The Employer is a community youth-based service providing various support to those requiring their services. They have been providing those services for the past fifty years. They are not an ETB based organisation. The Worker is employed as a community worker. She is not nor ever has been a youth worker be it senior or otherwise. She alleges that her rate of pay should have increased over the period of the employment and that it should replicate the circular published by the Minister in 2018 & 2023. She refers that she is a s.39 employee. The Complainant is not a Section 39 worker. The salaries of all frontline staff are based on the X Salary Scale, in order that the organisation would have a recognised national pay scale to refer to in setting salaries and to use as a guide for incremental pay progression (only when funding permits). The Worker has been treated the same as all others in the employment when salary scales were realigned and streamlined in line with the appropriate scale.
Conclusions:
In conducting my investigation, I have taken into account all relevant submissions presented to me by the parties. I can find no reason to either recommend that the Worker’s salary be increased or that she be placed on a different scale than her counterparts in the employment. To recommend so would have repercussive effects and go against the provisions of the Act that a dispute cannot be considered if it affects a body of workers. |
Recommendation:
Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969 requires that I make a recommendation in relation to the dispute. For the reasons above, I do not recommend in favour of the Worker.
Dated: 13/12/2024
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Gaye Cunningham
Key Words:
Industrial Relations dispute re rate of pay. Recommendation not in favour of the Worker. |