LCR23061

PARTIES:

DIVISION:

SUBJECT:

Appeal of Adjudication Officer Decision No's: ADJ-00048093 (CA-00059250-001, IR-SC-00001856)

BACKGROUND:

The Employer appealed the Adjudication Officer’s Recommendation to the Labour Court on 21 June 2024 in accordance with Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969.

A Labour Court hearing took place on 30 October 2024.

DECISION:

The worker has worked as a Social Inclusion Manager since 2017 and is paid at Grade VIII level.  When initially appointed to the role she had responsibility for the counties of Sligo and Leitrim. The role has since expanded to include five counties.

The worker lodged a formal grievance in relation to her grade in 2022 and while her grievance was not upheld, a review of her role was recommended. The manager who investigated her grievance was unaware of correspondence from the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform (DPER) to the HSE at that time which prohibited engagement or agreements on matters with implications for the public service agreements, pay policy and public expenditure – including pay claims, reviews, job evaluations, restructuring or regrading proposals - without prior formal approval from the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform. As a result, no review has taken place.

The worker seeks that the Court recommends an independent review of her claim for grade and pay parity with General Manager Grade, as provided for her in grievance outcome.

Union Position

The union submits that the work undertaken by the worker is similar to that of General Managers in Social Inclusion in terms of responsibility. There is no uniform approach across the HSE in relation to this role, as service requirements differ in each area dependent on the population. Grade VIII Social Inclusion Managers in other areas have a smaller remit; none of them carry the responsibility for all services in their region.

The union further submits that the employer has acknowledged that the claim for pay parity has merit and warrants further exploration. The employer committed to an independent review, but subsequently reneged on the commitment given, which leaves the worker carrying out roles and responsibilities which are significantly above those her colleagues are carrying for the Grade VIII salary.

The Department of Public Expenditure and Reform correspondence is not an official Circular and does not provide for the complete stonewalling of this claim. If the worker retired, the job would likely have to be advertised as a General Manager post similar to other areas in the HSE.

The worker seeks the correct rate of pay for the role that she is carrying out. She seeks an independent review as recommended as part of her grievance outcome in 2022. As the claim is for the correct rate of pay for the work carried out, it is not precluded by the terms of the various Public Service Agreements.

HSE Position

The HSE acknowledges that the worker is aggrieved and believes she should be remunerated at General Manager  level, however, the HSE is precluded from conducting any grading review.

All posts above Grade VIII require the approval of the Department of Health and in certain cases/grades the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform (DPER). To upgrade and therefore create a new post at General Manager grade requires approval of the Department of Health via the Chief People Officer and HSE CEO. 

While it is accepted that there was a grievance outcome suggesting an independent review of the claim, the employer is bound by the instruction from DPER. HSE management have sought approval to progress the review, however no approval has been received.

The role of Social Inclusion Manager is carried out by a range of grades including both Grade VIII Social Inclusion Managers and at General Manager grade. A review of that current structure is currently underway. Concession of this claim would have wider implications for the role across the Region.

A claim for pay parity of this nature is not an individual dispute and has potential to create a precedent affecting a body of workers. The matters being raised are more appropriate to a collective referral, as provided for under Public Services Agreements, where they can be dealt with from a national perspective rather than on an individual basis.

The Court has given careful consideration to the oral and written submissions.

The matter before the Court is a dispute as to whether the Worker properly holds the correct grade and rate of pay for the work that she carries out as a Social Inclusion Manager.

The issue of regrading has collective implications and any consideration of this dispute or decision issued by the Court in this matter has the potential to have wider implications across the public sector.  It is not the role of the Court in considering appeals by a single worker under Section 13 of the Industrial Act, 1969, to consider matters which could have application across the public sector.

Having regard to the above, the Court concludes that the within dispute is in fact a dispute that relates to the rates of pay of a body of workers. In those circumstances and noting that the parties before the Court have long established collective bargaining arrangements, the Court, having regard to the Act at Section 13(2), concludes that it cannot assist the parties in this matter and the appeal by the HSE succeeds.

	Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
	Katie Connolly
TH	______________________
21 November 2024	Deputy Chairman

NOTE

Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Therese Hickey, Court Secretary.