FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : ROTUNDA HOSPITAL (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Carberry Worker Member: Mr. Somers |
1. Access to a job evaluation process and payment of an acting up allowance.
BACKGROUND:
2. The case concerns a worker employed as a Grade 4 clerical worker. In 2001 a job evaluation exercise was carried for clerical workers in the Rotunda Hospital. The worker’s job was submitted for evaluation at that time. However, the evaluation exercise did not evaluate all individual posts, but evaluated each grade. The worker was not upgraded as a result of that exercise.
The Union claims that they were not consulted on the terms of the evaluation exercise and did not have a representative on the evaluation group. The Union contends that the worker carried out supervisory duties more appropriate to a higher grade. The worker was not aware that an appeals mechanism was in place or that any appeal had to be made within a two week period in October 2001. By the time the individual had received information regarding the evaluation exercise and appealing the exercise, the timeframe for an appeal had passed.
The Hospital recommended that a job evaluation be carried out. The Union contents that the workers supervisory functions have since changed and a job evaluation at this stage would be futile. The Union are seeking that the worker be paid the difference between her own grade IV point on the scale and that of a grade V from 1999 to September 2003.
The dispute could not be resolved at local level and was the subject of a conciliation conference under the auspices of the Labour Relations Commission. As agreement was not reached, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 5th March, 2004 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 29th July, 2004.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3.1The worker completed the job evaluation form in October 2001. She reasonably expected that her form would be examined. It was never look at.
2. The workers post was not submitted for evaluation, she was not informed of this. She took the process at face value and assumed that her additional duties would be taken into account in the evaluation process.
3. She assumed that since she had not been called for interview her job description form was evident.
4. The Hospital failed in its responsibility to the worker in not ensuring that her job was evaluated, or at least advise her of the situation.
5. The hospital have made efforts to have her job evaluated (since 2001) but the workers supervisory function has since changed.
HOSPITAL'S ARGUMENTS:
2.1 The restructuring which resulted in the evaluation exercise was instigated by the Hospital to benefit staff, help with retention and ensure uniformity in structures across the 3 maternity hospitals.
2. All staff were fully aware of the terms of reference and the process from the outset to the implementation of the final report.
3. The evaluation process examined the structures, positions and grades appropriate. The process did not consider the individuals in post but rather examined the positions and departmental structures in place.
4. The worker or her representatives did not raise any concerns or objections up to and including the final report.
5. The decisions reached by the Evaluation Team were independent of all parties.
6. The worker did not assume the full duties and responsibilities of a grade V, therefore she is not entitled to an acting up allowance.
RECOMMENDATION:
It is accepted that the claimant did perform duties above her grade although the extent to which she did so and the duration over which they were undertaken is in dispute. The Court also notes that the Union is not pursuing a claim for a re-evaluation of the claimant's post at this time but makes the point, that had such an evaluation been undertaken earlier the level of additional responsibility which she carried would have been established.
In all the circumstances of the case, the Court accepts that the claimant has a legitimate claim in respect of undertaking higher duties above those of her colleagues who were similarly graded. It recommends that the Hospital offer, and that the Union accept, a lump sum payment of €3,000 in full and final settlement of all outstanding claims.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
9th August, 2004______________________
JBChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Jackie Byrne, Court Secretary.