Does this fall under FOl

LegacyUser

I been trying to get HR to send me some criteria that they say, shows that the company does not have to pay me a salary increase, they never send it, but always refer to it.
Do you think this could fall under my right to ask for it under The FOI act?

Eoin

If their files specifically mention you, then that would come under the data protection act. The FOI is unlikely to apply. See here.

Do you have a contract that says you're entitled to an increase, and they're not paying it?

LegacyUser

Its a case of them saying pre 2005 employees get it, post 2005 don't but when asked to see this criteria they go quite

Mrs OBumble

I'm not sure there's any requirement for a companies policies to be written down. It's a good idea, yes, but not required.

LegacyUser

Its a multinational, surely if they are restricting a certain employee they should have a written criteria to protect themselves, how can they prove something otherwise.
Any how I think I'll request this policy that excludes me, under the data act

davo10

1confused wrote: »

Its a multinational, surely if they are restricting a certain employee they should have a written criteria to protect themselves, how can they prove something otherwise.
Any how I think I'll request this policy that excludes me, under the data act

OP do you think they are restricting you alone? Are you the only employee in this multinational who didn't get a pay rise? If you are, I can understand what you are doing but if you aren't, it's a career wrecker. They do not have to prove anything, you do.

Pay rises are not an entitlement and unless your contract guarantees pay rises, the company will just point you to the agreed remuneration in your contract. No company will give you their policy document on awarding pay increases, it is confidential and could be used against them by individuals and unions.

I really don't see what you hope to gain from this, if you feel discriminated against and didn't get an increase because of gender, martial status, religion etc you can take a case for discrimination but otherwise, you cannot compel them to give you a raise and you are just going to end any hope of career advancement.

LegacyUser

Yes, it effects me only...but may set a precedent for others to challenge it.
I have a couple of emails that indicate that it was a general % increase, no mention of any persons been excluded, I noticed I didn't get it at the next salary payment so I queried it.

blindsider

But why are they treating the OP differently? If EVERYONE else is getting an increase, then why not the OP? Maybe they have grounds for it, but the OP would be entitled to know what these entail?


Is the OP doing (essentially) the same job etc as the other employees? If the OP is being discriminated against based on length of service, then I'd certainly query that - seems very tenuous to me - esp. if this was not made clear before now.

Stheno

blindsider wrote: »

But why are they treating the OP differently? If EVERYONE else is getting an increase, then why not the OP? Maybe they have grounds for it, but the OP would be entitled to know what these entail?


Is the OP doing (essentially) the same job etc as the other employees? If the OP is being discriminated against based on length of service, then I'd certainly query that - seems very tenuous to me - esp. if this was not made clear before now.

OP didn't meet the performance levels?

I've worked in plenty of companies where it was known what percentage increase one could expect dependant on a performance grade, and equally well known that grade could expect no increase.

Unless the OP is suggesting a note was sent explaining the grades of each employee which is humiliating, but unless based on the nine grounds of discrimination is not a breach of data protection either

Saying employee x did not qualify for a bonus/payrise is not part of data protection

Nody

blindsider wrote: »

Is the OP doing (essentially) the same job etc as the other employees? If the OP is being discriminated against based on length of service, then I'd certainly query that - seems very tenuous to me - esp. if this was not made clear before now.

Did you miss the whole public service debacle and discussion for the last five years? Employees on different benefits due to changing of contract over time is nothing new; most companies aim to harmonize it every so often by buying out the old benefits but it's far from illegal.

blindsider

Stheno wrote: »

OP didn't meet the performance levels?

I've worked in plenty of companies where it was known what percentage increase one could expect dependant on a performance grade, and equally well known that grade could expect no increase.

Unless the OP is suggesting a note was sent explaining the grades of each employee which is humiliating, but unless based on the nine grounds of discrimination is not a breach of data protection either

Saying employee x did not qualify for a bonus/payrise is not part of data protection

Very possibly - but the OP didn't mention that - hence my question. (I only deal with facts as supplied. If a poster chooses to omit relevant information, then the info/advice they get from me will be useless.)

DP is a different issue altogether.

@ Nody - Civil & Public Service is different - this is the private sector we're talking about. There is no large union negotiated agreement here.

And no, I didn't miss the debate - it's just that it's not relevant here.

DM addict

OP, to double check -

They sent an email saying there would be a general % pay increase, no mention of it being more specifically applied.

You noticed you didn't get it, and queried it.

They then replied and said this only applied to employees with the company from pre-2005. (I'm guessing you joined post 2005?)

That right?

It could have just been a mistake in the original email - it might have been meant to read that employees with the company for 10yrs or more will get % increase. Do you know if anyone else who is there post-2005 is getting an increase (not that I suggest you go around asking)?

It is possible they're just screwing you over, but it seems particularly unreasonable. It's reasonable to query it, and ask for clarification as to why the original communication stated that this was a blanket increase. But to be honest if you've not been there pre-2005, and those are the criteria, I'm not sure there's much you can do.