Worker

Employer

Anonymised Parties

A Worker

A Food Authority

Representatives

Peter Glynn SIPTU

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 - 00001355

03/05/2023

The worker is employed as a craft butcher with the employer. The worker contends that his employer has failed to recognise the significant contributions he makes in the successful operation of the Meat Industry Development Industry Unit (MIDU).  In this regard, the worker is seeking to have a job evaluation carried out by an independent assessor. The worker states that the MIDU is a raw and cooked meats knowledge/research facility. The worker states that he ensures adherence to safety issue certification and compliance with the various regulations. The worker states that he commenced employment with the employer in December 1980. He contends that over this time he has demonstrated both diligence and professionalism regarding all tasks assigned to him.

The worker states that in 2004, he received additional allowances following a review which identified that he was carrying out duties of a higher value. The worker maintains that since the review in 2004, the additional responsibilities have increased with further regulations placed on the site at the Food Research Centre. The worker reiterates that the MIDU requires the utmost supervision to ensure compliance within the meat processing centre.  The worker asserts that the three previous incumbent craft workers were all paid on the higher technician’s salary in recognition of their responsibilities at that time.

The worker states that he is fully qualified and is carrying out the duties and responsibilities of the role but without the proper remuneration for same. The worker states that while the employer has argued that his claim is in breach of the National Agreement regarding pay, the within claim is not a pay increase as defined within the National Agreements but a review sought of the worker’s current role and responsibilities. The worker also contends that he carries out the role of supervision on a continuing basis on the premises taking cognisance of the large range of students on site and the dangerous equipment involved.

The employer states that the worker is paid on the maintenance craft worker pay scale and is on the maximum point of the scale. The employer states that additionally, the worker is in receipt of a number of allowances as follows; higher duties allowance of €4,113 per annum, research butcher allowance of €4,779 per annum, travel allowance of €5,713.71, eating on site allowance of €510.04 per annum therefore has a total remuneration of €59,676 per annum.

The employer states that in 2004 the worker was awarded the higher duties allowance to compensate him for higher duties which forms part of his role. The employer states that the worker is the only staff member with the organisation who is on the maintenance craft worker pay scale who is in receipt of a higher duties allowance.

The employer states that at the start of 2020, the worker made a claim seeking higher pay as he had claimed that the work he was now carrying out was at a higher level to what he had been doing when awarded the higher duties allowance in 2004 however this claim was rejected by management. Subsequently in 2022 the worker via SIPTU again submitted a claim for higher pay and this was again rejected by management. The employer submitted that in making its decision, management reviewed the duties and level of responsibilities being undertaken by the worker and while the role has changed, in line with the changing nature of programme delivery required in the Food Research Centre, the employer maintains that there is no evidence to suggest that this is at a higher level than what is deemed appropriate to his total remuneration.

The employer further asserts that the public service agreement, Building Momentum states that there will be no cost increasing claims for improvements in pay or conditions of employment by trade unions or employees during the period of the Agreement. The employer asserts that the within claim by the worker is clearly a cost increasing claim and therefore precluded under section 5.6 of Building Momentum.       

In conducting my investigation, I have taken into account all relevant submissions presented to me by the parties.

I note that the worker is in receipt of a number of allowances, including a higher duties allowance to compensate him for higher level duties which forms part of his role.

I find that no evidence was presented by the worker to demonstrate that the duties being carried out by him are at a higher level than what is appropriate for his level of remuneration and pay grade.

I am also cognisant of the employer’s point that the within claim is precluded under section 5.6 of the current public service agreement, Building Momentum which states that there will be no cost increasing claims for improvements in pay or conditions of employment by trade unions or employees during the period of the Agreement.

Based on all of the foregoing, I do not recommend concession to the worker’s claim.  

Industrial Relations Act