Worker

Employer

Anonymised Parties

A Worker

An owner of the transmission & distribution electricity networks

Representatives

John Keenan IR Advisor, Independent Workers' Union

 Internal HR

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 - 00001794

17/09/2023

The Worker is employed as a Networks Technician (NT) and stated that he is on a lesser rate of pay than new recruits with no networks or comparable infrastructure experience or competencies/approvals.  He has also been deployed to train these new recruits. He asserts that it is unfair that these new recruits are paid more than him.

He also stated that it was unfair that he could not refer the dispute regarding this perceived unfairness to the Employer’s internal Joint Industrial Council.

The Worker is employed as a Networks Technician (NT) and stated that he is on a lesser rate of pay than recruits with no networks or comparable infrastructure experience or competencies/approvals.  He has also been deployed to train new recruits who are paid a higher rate of pay than he is.

In rejecting his internal grievance that he was unfairly treated via a vis the new recruits, the Employer relied upon the terms of a 2016 collective agreement reached with the Group of Unions. The grievance outcome specifically stated that the pay model at which the Worker was recruited “provides the flexibility to recruit experienced individuals into the company at different pay points in the band” before going on to refer to factors that influence the placement of recruits into the pay bands implemented under the collective agreement.

The Worker stated in the first instance that “the flexibility to recruit” referred to in the grievance outcome, is not expressly provided for in the provisions of the collective agreement and that this rationale cannot therefore be relied upon to justify the less favourable treatment of the Worker vis a vis the new recruits to which he referred. The Worker also stated that the placement of new recruits at higher than base or entry level bands/rates is not expressly provided for in the collective agreement.

Regarding the issue of the Worker being deployed to train lesser skilled and less experienced recruits who are on higher rates of pay, it was acknowledged that such a scenario can occur on an occasional or exceptional basis, but not on a routine or systematic basis, as in the Worker’s case.

In his grievance, the Worker also referred to a case which he stated was analogous to the context in which his grievance arises. In addressing this issue, the grievance outcome simply stated that it was “personal in nature to that individual.” The Worker acknowledged that while personal/strictly individual matters can arise and can be dealt with on a ‘red circled’ basis, the absence of any detail whatsoever in respect of this case, and in particular the potential for it to have been agreed as a ‘red circled’ matter, raises more concern than it might otherwise assuage or address.

The Worker submitted an Appeal in respect of the grievance outcome. Although the Appeal decision maker simply repeated the decision made by the original decision maker, he acknowledged that the substantive issue raised by the Worker in respect of “concerns regarding the differential in pay between existing Network Technicians with specific … experience that hold and operate …  approvals (which can be obtained over time) to those recruited externally.” He further, indicated that he had “consulted with Human Resources who advised that the matter of pay progression for experienced Network Technician staff … is a matter under review”, between management and the trades unions, with the strong implication that the pay disparity issue raised by the Worker had the prospect of being addressed in the review in question. It was asserted that, 12 months later, there is no evidence that the review referred has taken place or progressed.

Having exhausted the internal procedure through a first instance hearing and an appeal hearing, without success, the Worker submitted his complaint to the WRC.

The Worker also highlighted that he was not permitted access to the internal Joint Industrial Council to progress his grievance, as he is not in membership of a trade union recognised for collective bargaining within the Employer. He therefore requested that a recommendation also stipulate that the Employer reviews the existing limitation on access to the Employer’s Industrial Council.

The Employer stated that the pay model agreed under the collective agreement is a market-based pay model designed to attract, retain, and motivate employees. The agreed pay model does this by rewarding serving employees through a pay progression system that is reflective of individual contribution and performance i.e., end of year performance review ratings will determine how quickly an employee’s pay will progress through the applicable pay band. This can result in individual employees’ pay progressing to the maximum of the pay band at a different pace meaning that on occasion, staff are paid different rates of pay for like work. Furthermore, the market-based pay model is designed with a broad pay band system which facilitates the attraction of external candidates to vacant positions by offering starting salaries that reflect individual skills, experience, and qualifications. This is key to the operation of a market-based pay model and forms an integral part of the pay model that is agreed with the Group of Unions. This is not an uncommon approach across the labour market including the electrical contracting industry which is the pool of workers the Employer has been recruiting qualified electricians from.

In order to attract the qualified and experienced candidates but also to ensure a consistent and fair approach was applied to salary offers (particularly for large recruitment campaigns), a hiring salary matrix in line with the collective agreement was put in place for external candidates being offered NT positions. The salary matrix was rigorously applied and ensured that candidates with less post qualification experience were not offered salaries equal to or greater than existing employees. It was accepted that the Employer recruited several new NTs on higher salaries than the Worker in 2022. Out of ten newly hired NTs where the Worker is assigned, eight had greater post qualification experience than the Worker and therefore were offered starting salaries in line with the salary matrix. The remaining two new hires were offered starting salaries lower than the Worker while having similar post qualification experience.

The Employer has continued to recruit a large number of qualified electricians into the NT category throughout 2023 and in early 2024. All new hire NTs recruited in 2023 or more recently in 2024 with equal or less post qualification experience than the Worker have been offered lower starting salaries than him. It was also highlighted that the pay model offers the Worker the opportunity to progress through the pay band more quickly if he consistently ‘exceeds expectations’ in his performance review each year.

The Employer stated that, throughout the internal grievance process, the Worker referred to a similar case before the Employer’s Joint Industrial Council as the basis of his claim. It was asserted that it was not a comparable case however and was designated as a personal case to the individual concerned.

The issue at hand is that the Worker is being paid less than new recruits even though he is training them, doing the same work as them and has more networks infrastructure experience as well as competencies/approvals than them. He is therefore seeking a recommendation to effectively amend the existing collective agreement that governs his terms and conditions of employment.

In deciding on a recommendation, I note firstly that the current collective agreement does not preclude the Employer from paying new recruits with greater post qualification experience higher rates of pay than existing employees. Additionally, there was no suggestion made at the hearing that the Worker’s terms and conditions are not in line with those stipulated in the collective agreement for someone with his post qualification experience. There was also no concrete basis presented to justify red circling the Worker’s terms and conditions of employment.

I find therefore that a recommendation in favour of the Worker would fundamentally undermine the existing collective agreement made between the employer and the group of unions. Specifically, such a recommendation would likely trigger a wave of additional claims from other employees, who would seek salary increases outside of the agreement due to a perceived unfairness in their terms and conditions of employment.

Such a recommendation would also call into question the validity of collective agreements in general, which are broadly beneficial to both workers and employers. These agreements help to maintain industrial harmony by providing a structured framework for compensation and employment conditions. Undermining them could lead to increased discord and instability within an organisation.

It would also be inappropriate, in the context of a dispute referred under this legislation, to recommend that the union, of which the Worker in this case is a member, be afforded access to the Employer’s joint industrial council as such a recommendation would impact more than the Worker in the instant dispute.