Investigation Recommendation Reference: IR - SC - 00001971
Parties:
| Worker | Employer |
Anonymised Parties | A Receptionist | Visitor Centre |
Representatives | Eoin Drummey Unite the Union | Katie Nugent, The HR Suite |
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 - 00001971 | 10/11/2023 |
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Thomas O'Driscoll
Date of Hearing: 23/04/2024
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 commenced employment as a receptionist on 1 September 1997 and earns €567 gross; €486 net for a 40.5-hour week. She sought a pay rise of €1.50 per hour, retrospective to 1 April 2023 The Employer granted her €0.50c per hour. She submits she has not received a pay increase for 14 years. The internal grievance procedure was exhausted by the Worker. The Employer submits it carried out an audit of pay scales at the centre. Pay was evaluated according to skills and responsibilities and the Employer contends that the Worker was given the proper pay rise, as determined by the audit. |
Summary of Workers Case:
The Worker, who was an employee for 26 years, lodged a formal grievance regarding a proposed pay increase. She was dissatisfied with a €0.50 raise when colleagues received €1.50. Despite following protocol, management failed to address her concerns adequately. An appeal, supported by her Union highlighted her long-standing dedication and increased responsibilities, including being a key holder, yet management upheld the initial decision. The Worker asserts that her role merits recognition as a Team Lead and demands a fair pay increase of €1.50, citing her exemplary service and absence of financial constraints on the employer's part. The Worker argues that her present rate of €14 per hour is substantially less than the living wage of €14.85 per hour. |
Summary of Employer’s Case:
The Employer contends that the proposed increase is in line with industry standards and is based on the role rather than the individual. The Employer carried out an audit on the skills and responsibilities of all staff and established that the pay rise was properly evaluated for her role. The Employer argues that it is a trust, being a private entity, and cannot be bound by the norms in the private or public sector, however, it argues that the pay of the Worker is in line with normal pay for a receptionist in a similar role. The Worker was given the benefit of an independent appeal process where it was found that her claim lacked further justification and upheld the original decision. The Employer argues that it provided the Worker with ample opportunity to present her case and followed the rules of natural justice. The Employer acknowledges disappointment on the Worker’s behalf but asserts that it cannot offer a larger increase due to financial constraints. The Employer asserts the Worker was give a €2 per hour increase 15 years ago, which included the responsibility of being a key holder. The Employer does not deny that business has increased post Covid but submits that funds are needed for vital infrastructural projects. The pay rate of €14.00 per is in compliance with minimum wage laws and was backdated accordingly. |
Conclusions:
In conducting my investigation, I have taken into account all relevant submissions presented to me by the parties. The Worker gave a convincing account of the hardship she suffered by not getting a pay-rise for 14 years. This was compounded by the fact that in contrast to the 0.50c an hour eventually offered; other work colleagues received €1.50 an hour. The Employer gave a plausible argument that an audit based on skills and responsibilities determined that the correct wage rises were implemented in line with external norms. However, in the realm of pay rises, skills and responsibilities should never be the sole indices upon which pay rises are granted. It was evident that a cost-of-living rise was also warranted. The Worker gave good service during challenging times in the recent past and had obviously foregone a pay claim in that period. I am conscious that the employer in this instance is a Trust with the laudable aim of enticing visitors to enjoy the benefits of an historic area, however business has improved, and the Worker is at the coal-face of the operation and is entitled to the living wage which would enable her to afford a socially acceptable standard of living. The current living wage in Ireland is €14.85 |
Recommendation:
Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969 requires that I make a recommendation in relation to the dispute.
For the reasons outlined above, I recommend that the Employer would increase the Workers current wage of €14.00 to €14.85 per week, the equivalent of the recommended current living wage. The increase should be backdated to 1 April 2023. Furthermore, I would recommend that future pay rises for the Worker should be in line with the internal Key Performance Indicators (KPI).
Dated: 08/05/2024
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Thomas O'Driscoll
Key Words:
Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969, Pay Claim. |