Case Number: ADJ-00000200. Workplace Relations Commission

• Court: Workplace Relations Commission
• Docket Number: ADJ-00000200
• Date: 23 February 2016
• Parties: A Childcare Worker -v- A Creche

ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION

Adjudication Decision Reference: ADJ-00000200

Complaint for Resolution:

Act	Complaint/Dispute Reference No.	Date of Receipt
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under Section 16 of the Protection of Employees (Part-Time Work) Act, 2001	CA-00000281-001	19/10/2015

Date of Adjudication Hearing: 26/01/2016

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Pat Brady

Procedure:

In accordance with Section 41(4) of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 following the referral of the complaintto me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaint and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaint

Summary of Complainant’s Submission:

The complainant gave evidence that she commenced employment with the Respondent on 13^th September 2010 in its North Dublin city facility. She was employed on the National Minimum Wage of €8.65 for twenty hours a week.

In 2013 she was transferred to a nearby facility operated by the company and while her starting and finishing times were one hour later she retained her twenty hours per week. However, while she had a specific assignment in the previous location in her new location she describes her role as a ‘floater’ i.e. providing cover for meal and other breaks because there were insufficient hours to give her a more regular role.

She stressed that this was not by her choice but at the behest of the employer.

Her initial contract of employment stated that salaries would be reviewed on an annual basis but the first review did not take place until February 2015 when she was given an increase of €0.30 per hour but was given no indication as to how the increases came to be calculated.

In due course she learned that colleagues also got increases which were in excess of hers; in their case of approximately €0.50 per hour. While initially happy with the increase she became dissatisfied on learning of this variation and raised it with the company management. She did not get what she regarded as a satisfactory response.

She was told by a Director (AB) that ‘pay rises were determined by taking into account the roles being carried out by staff in the crèche.

Her complaint is that she was paid less than a named fulltime staff member (AW) and that this also was related to her status as a ‘floating’ employee.

Respondent’s Submission and Presentation:

In its response the company said that it had increased certain salaries by reference to two criteria; one was to lift certain employees off the basic national minimum wage and the second was related to, or based on the nature of the roles they performed.

The company denied that the distinction between part time and full time status had any bearing on this.

In its evidence it stated that the comparator (AW) had higher responsibilities than the complainant; she was regarded as a ’key’ worker with responsibilities for curriculum planning, room layout, and she was flexible in relation to the total number of hours she could work.

It also submitted detail on named employees which showed that, among part time employees the...