Regional Pay Cut

Jampip

I previously worked in an entry level role for my organisation and moved from a Dublin office to a regional office in 2009. I took a 10% cost of living pay cut as part of this transfer.

Since then, I have been promoted a number of times and got pay rises with each promotion.

My employer is now moving the role I complete back to their Dublin office. However, they are refusing to reinstate the 10% pay cut I took previously.

Is this legal?

Their reasoning is that I am above the salary level set in the company for the role I am performing. However, I know there are people in the company on significantly more than me (more than 5k) doing the same role I will be. I have pointed this out to them but they didn't take much notice.

Stheno

Yes they can give you whatever level of pay you agree to.

They are not legally required to reinstate a previous paycut.

Jampip

Stheno wrote: »

Yes they can give you whatever level of pay you agree to.

They are not legally required to reinstate a previous paycut.

I agreed a level of pay last year for completing my role in the Louth office of the company though.

I have not agreed a rate of pay for the Dublin office and, as I said, I previously took a 10% pay cut based on the cost of living being cheaper in Louth.

Qualitymark

Ask your union to negotiate on this? They have the bargaining power of multiple people, and can bargain in a way that you can't, because they're back a little from the edge of the conflict.

Trampas

I always hate the cost of living is cheaper down the country.

A litre of milk or slice pan is the same price in Dublin as anywhere else. If anything in Dublin it's probably cheaper. Esb, gas, TV is the same price.

Yes rent and house prices are probably cheaper but that's it.

Different position different contract I guess so probably new terms and conditions. Unless you've got a union I say take it or leave it situation unless you've got it in writing

Stheno

Trampas wrote: »

Unless you've got a union I say take it or leave it situation unless you've got it in writing

I'd agree with this, it's what you negotiate unless you've a union.

The "other people are paid more" argument rarely works

Jampip

Qualitymark wrote: »

Ask your union to negotiate on this? They have the bargaining power of multiple people, and can bargain in a way that you can't, because they're back a little from the edge of the conflict.

There is no union in my organisation.

The situation now is that my role is transferring back to the Dublin office. The department I am in has closed in Louth.

So I can either transfer back to Dublin at the same wage or I am made redundant by a compulsory process.

Is there not an element of constructive dismissal in that the company are denying a pay rise that was previously deducted?

I know I should be seeking legal advice but my company have not made any legal advice available to employees and I cannot afford same.

Stheno

Jampip wrote: »

There is no union in my organisation.

The situation now is that my role is transferring back to the Dublin office. The department I am in has closed in Louth.

So I can either transfer back to Dublin at the same wage or I am made redundant by a compulsory process.

Is there not an element of constructive dismissal in that the company are denying a pay rise that was previously deducted?

I know I should be seeking legal advice but my company have not made any legal advice available to employees and I cannot afford same.

No to be blunt.

As you've posted locations I've a fair idea of whom you work for, and you'll get nowhere

Either move back or take the redundancy, tbh having had a few promotions and gotten back to or above where you are, I think you are taking the proverbial a bit.

Were I your manager, I'd not be happy with you referring to something that happened to you several roles ago and wanting to revisit it.

You need to decide if you want to stay with the company or not

davo10

Jampip wrote: »

Is there not an element of constructive dismissal in that the company are denying a pay rise that was previously deducted?

I know I should be seeking legal advice but my company have not made any legal advice available to employees and I cannot afford same.

If the first bit of this were true, every public servant who has taken a pay cut since 2008 would have a case.

The second bit, I cannot see how you think that an employer should make legal advice "available" , so that an employee can sue the employer.

Unless previously agreed in your contract, employers are not required to reinstate pay rates, again if they were, every public servant would now be on the same wage as before the recession. Wages were cut in most sectors in 2009 and many have not gone up to pre-recession levels.

If they are closing your section, they may have a valid case for making you redundant, if you refuse the job after they offered to give you an alternative in the companies main location, I suspect it makes the likelihood of redundancy a foregone conclusion.

Jampip

davo10 wrote: »

If the first bit of this were true, every public servant who has taken a pay cut since 2008 would have a case.

The second bit, I cannot see how you think that an employer should make legal advice "available" , so that an employee can sue the employer.

Unless previously agreed in your contract, employers are not required to reinstate pay rates, again if they were, every public servant would now be on the same wage as before the recession. Wages were cut in most sectors in 2009 and many have not gone up to pre-recession levels.

If they are closing your section, they may have a valid case for making you redundant, if you refuse the job after they offered to give you an alternative in the companies main location, I suspect it makes the likelihood of redundancy a foregone conclusion.

Stheno wrote: »

No to be blunt.

As you've posted locations I've a fair idea of whom you work for, and you'll get nowhere

Either move back or take the redundancy, tbh having had a few promotions and gotten back to or above where you are, I think you are taking the proverbial a bit.

Were I your manager, I'd not be happy with you referring to something that happened to you several roles ago and wanting to revisit it.

You need to decide if you want to stay with the company or not

The previous pay cut was based on a change of office location. Now that I am moving back to that location, how is it unfair to expect that a cut taken, based on geographic location, will be reinstated?

Did public sector people take a pay cut based on their moving to a rural geographic location and were they then refused same when asked to move back to Dublin? I don't remember same.

Other staff who never worked in the Dublin office in my situation in our department are being offered a pay rise. The fact that I received promotions is being used against me.

However, even with these promotions, I was always on a lower salary band than individuals in the Dublin office completing the same role and I still am, as I have said.

I also don't expect legal advice to sue the company. I would like it so that I can explore my rights. It was previously offered to staff in my situation but the company are not doing it on this occasion. They have been known for sailing close to the wind re employment law in the past.

At present, tbh, my plan is to take the redundancy but I will be looking into taking a case of unfair dismissal. I have presented costings to the company of how much the office change will effect my earnings. The 10% reinstatement will not even cover half of it.

I would also point out that I have always performed well and received good scores in my yearly appraisal. I have no disciplinaries. My manager did not take any exception to my raising the topic. He actually commented that I have been a more than model employee.

Qualitymark

Jampip wrote: »

There is no union in my organisation.

Hm, you have a problem then.

davo10

Unless your contract entitles you to a reversal of your paycut, claiming unfair dismissal based on a paycut which occurred six years ago during the longest recession in the country's history may be a waste of your time.

They are offering you redundancy or a job at a different location (main centre) because your section is being permanently closed, are you really being "unfairly dismissed"?

You could get free advice from your local citizens advice centre, I'm not sure if flac deal with employment disputes, someone else here can advise you on that.

Qualitymark

But surely, davo10, the era of the pay cut is beside the point. The logic of the pay cut was that it was cheaper to live in the country - which it is, because the main living expense, rent or mortgage, is cheaper in rural areas.
Now the company requires Jampip to relocate to Dublin; surely by the same logic they should reinstate Jampip's living expense?

davo10

Qualitymark wrote: »

But surely, davo10, the era of the pay cut is beside the point. The logic of the pay cut was that it was cheaper to live in the country - which it is, because the main living expense, rent or mortgage, is cheaper in rural areas.
Now the company requires Jampip to relocate to Dublin; surely by the same logic they should reinstate Jampip's living expense?

Op agreed to the paycut and probably should have gotten contract amended to include reinstatement of pay rate if he/she was required to move back to Dublin. I assume the op did not negotiate this or the thread would be in the legal discussion forum. With the section closing and the fact that the op was transferred 6 years ago ( in other words the company didn't just transfer the op so that he/she could be let go) , redundancy would seem a valid option and the company may not be required to offer the Dublin job at all.

If the op was transferred six months or a year ago, I could see the logic of claiming unfair dismissal, but this was in 2009 when most people were taking a financial hit, often considerably more than 10%, i just don't see how this situation could be construed as unfair dismissal and I think the ops expectation that legal advice on this matter should be made "available" by the employer is a misguided.

Jampip

davo10 wrote: »

Op agreed to the paycut and probably should have gotten contract amended to include reinstatement of pay rate if he/she was required to move back to Dublin. I assume the op did not negotiate this or the thread would be in the legal discussion forum. With the section closing and the fact that the op was transferred 6 years ago ( in other words the company didn't just transfer the op so that he/she could be let go) , redundancy would seem a valid option and the company may not be required to offer the Dublin job at all.

If the op was transferred six months or a year ago, I could see the logic of claiming unfair dismissal, but this was in 2009 when most people were taking a financial hit, often considerably more than 10%, i just don't see how this situation could be construed as unfair dismissal and I think the ops expectation that legal advice on this matter should be made "available" by the employer is a misguided.

I wasn't transferred six years ago. I actively sought to move to the Louth office along with a number of other staff. We all took 10% pay cuts as part of the relocation.

In 2011, a number of those staff moved back to Dublin and had their 10% cuts reinstated because they were still in the same position.

The company were looking at moving me at this juncture but I stated that I should also get the 10% back, despite my promotions since. They later agreed to leave me in the Louth office.

Now they want me to move and state I am at the salary band for the level I am moving to so am not due the 10%. However, I know there are people in the Dublin office performing the same role, but not as well as me according to appraisal scores, who are on significantly more.

Unfair Dismissal occurs I've read when the employer creates a hostile environment. Surely it is a hostile environment to expect me to move to a separate office, not reinstating the pay cut I previously took, despite the fact that they agree that the 10% being repaid would not even cover half my travel expenses?

_Brian

People throw about unfair dismissal without knowing what it is.

Unfair dismissal is a case taken where proper procedure is not used to terminate an employees employment with a company, providing they follow correct guidelines on completing redundancy then it will not be possible to take an Unfair Dismissal case.

Potentially OP could look for a Constructive Dismissal case. But, the company are offering OP an alternative position at his current pay so I can't see that as a case. They are closing a whole division, so OP can't argue they are singling him out again reducing possibility of a constructive dismissal case.

I really think OP has no case to take. Remember sour grapes over a situation doesn't mean your entitled to take a case, you don't have to like it, it just needs to be legal which on the face if it, it would seem to be.

If your not happy to move to Dublin then take the redundancy, I think it would be wasting money to pursue any case afterwards.

ted1

Jampip wrote: »

I agreed a level of pay last year for completing my role in the Louth office of the company though.

I have not agreed a rate of pay for the Dublin office and, as I said, I previously took a 10% pay cut based on the cost of living being cheaper in Louth.

But getting promotionsrant a change in pay structure , in your current pay structure are you on par with your colleagues in Dublin?
You should be getting relocation expenses

Jampip

ted1 wrote: »

But getting promotionsrant a change in pay structure , in your current pay structure are you on par with your colleagues in Dublin?
You should be getting relocation expenses

No, as I have said, some colleagues in Dublin are on significantly more than me. More than 5k more to be exact.

The company has a set salary banding a you move through so I am on the banding for the Louth office, not the Dublin one.

No relocation expenses are being paid due to financial constraints the company say. A 2k relocation payment was made with forced relocation in the past.

Qualitymark

Jampip, are there other differences between you and your colleagues in Dublin? Age, sex, qualifications?

davo10

But op, they have a bone fide reason to made you redundant, the office is closing, your position is gone. They have made you an offer to relocate, they may not have to do that. So it may be a case of redundancy or accept the offer, I don't see how this is constructive nor unfair dismissal, the position you accepted in 2009 no longer exists.

Jampip

davo10 wrote: »

But op, they have a bone fide reason to made you redundant, the office is closing, your position is gone. They have made you an offer to relocate, they may not have to do that. So it may be a case of redundancy or accept the offer, I don't see how this is constructive nor unfair dismissal, the position you accepted in 2009 no longer exists.

The office is not closing. My position is not gone. There is a position for me in the Dublin office where my department is now moving to.

Jampip

Qualitymark wrote: »

Jampip, are there other differences between you and your colleagues in Dublin? Age, sex, qualifications?

No. However the ones on higher salaries were hired from outside the company whereas I started at a low level and was promoted, eventually reaching their level.

Stheno

Jampip wrote: »

The office is not closing. My position is not gone. There is a position for me in the Dublin office where my department is now moving to.

I suspect I know your company

Id take the offer or redundancy if I were you

matrim

You mention other people moving back to Dublin. Are they getting offered a relocation increase? Are they on the same level as you?

davo10

So I guess the crux of this seems to be, if you were doing the same job and on the same salary as when you moved, they would be more inclined to reinstate the pay cut when you moved back to Dublin. But since you moved, you have been promoted and have received pay increases, when doing this the company are saying that they no longer took the fact that you took a pay cut into consideration and your new position/wage is now completely independent of the relocation/pay cut issue? Could they argue that if you hadn't moved in the first place, you may not have received the promotion and the subsequent pay rises which more or less cancel out the initial pay cut (I am mindful here that you said you sought the initial relocation rather than it being forced)?

Personnel who join a company at different times often have different wages depending on the "going rate" at the time/qualifications/ whether the company are trying to entice the person into working there etc. Just because someone else doing the same job as you is not earning the same wage as you is not an indication of wrongdoing by the employer unless you can prove it is being done due to discrimination.

Qualitymark

There used to be a similar situation in telecoms - people who were hired in from university were an "officer class", paid more and with higher status than those who were promoted from within (who were known as the "black men" in a dark joke). A long fight by the union finally got it sorted.

Mrs OBumble

Jampip wrote: »

No. However the ones on higher salaries were hired from outside the company whereas I started at a low level and was promoted, eventually reaching their level.

So they have external experience and networks that you don't?

That alone could make them more valuable to the company than you, even though you are doing the same job on paper
paper.

Jampip

matrim wrote: »

You mention other people moving back to Dublin. Are they getting offered a relocation increase? Are they on the same level as you?

No-one is being offered a relocastion expense. The two offices are 100km apart.

Would this be relevant?

http://blog.thehrcompany.ie/index.php/employees-compensated-e35000-for-22km-relocation-labour-court/

Jampip

davo10 wrote: »

So I guess the crux of this seems to be, if you were doing the same job and on the same salary as when you moved, they would be more inclined to reinstate the pay cut when you moved back to Dublin. But since you moved, you have been promoted and have received pay increases, when doing this the company are saying that they no longer took the fact that you took a pay cut into consideration and your new position/wage is now completely independent of the relocation/pay cut issue? Could they argue that if you hadn't moved in the first place, you may not have received the promotion and the subsequent pay rises which more or less cancel out the initial pay cut (I am mindful here that you said you sought the initial relocation rather than it being forced)?
.

I don't see how the company could argue that though. They have clear salary bandings where the regional office is always ten percent less than the Dublin office. Therefore no matter what position I have moved to, I have always been on at least 10% less than those doing the same job in the Dublin office.

It's the same for anyone in any position in the company.

Qualitymark

Perhaps you need to have a chat with FLAC rather than randomers on boards, jampip?

gandalf

I'd suggest giving the National Employment Rights Authority a call to discuss this with them.

As others have said I believe there is no real obligation on the company to reinstate the pay cut as you have moved into a different position since then and it has be a number of years since the move.

TBH I think you need to decide whether you want to continue working for this company or not because from reading your posts it seems that you have lost trust in them?

amen

There used to be a similar situation in telecoms - people who were hired in from university were an "officer class", paid more and with higher status than those who were promoted from within (who were known as the "black men" in a dark joke). A long fight by the union finally got it sorted.

A little off post but there was a reason for the difference, those from University had a degree in Engineering and were qualified engineers. Those promoted up the ranks did not have an engineering degree. The job titles were also different.

Jampip

Qualitymark wrote: »

Perhaps you need to have a chat with FLAC rather than randomers on boards, jampip?

Who is FLAC?

Stheno

Jampip wrote: »

Who is FLAC?

Legal advice centre

http://www.flac.ie/

Qualitymark

gandalf wrote: »

I'd suggest giving the National Employment Rights Authority a call to discuss this with them.

This is better advice than mine. FLAC tends to be young lawyers getting experience, NERA would be specialists.

amen wrote: »

A little off post but there was a reason for the difference, those from University had a degree in Engineering and were qualified engineers. Those promoted up the ranks did not have an engineering degree. The job titles were also different.

Not always, amen; even when the people promoted from inside had studied and got an engineering degree, they were on a lower rate, different job title, lower status. It changed later, I think.