FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : ST. JAMES'S HOSPITAL - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY IRISH MUNICIPAL, PUBLIC AND CIVIL TRADE UNION) DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Mr Nash |
1. Appeal against Rights Commissioners Recommendation IR20726/04/MMG.
BACKGROUND:
2. The appeal concerns a worker who is employed as a Grade IV clerical worker in the Internal Audit Department of the hospital. In 2000 the worker sought to have his post upgraded to Grade V on the basis of his duties and responsibilities. Management agreed to have the post evaluated and this exercise was undertaken in 2001. The Job Evaluation report recommended that the post should be a Grade V, provided that the duties and responsibilities were fully developed. Management did not agree with the Job Evaluation report and did not implement it. This was not acceptable to the Union. The dispute was referred to a Rights Commissioner for investigation. On the 5th May, 2005 the Rights Commissioner issued his recommendation as follows;
" .........It is my recommendation that
A. An updated job description for the current position of grade 3 in internal audit should be completed by the complainant, his immediate supervisor and agreed with human resources.
B. This updated job description should be the basis for the new evaluation of the position under the current scheme, following the appropriate procedure.
C. On completion of this evaluation the outcome would be discussed in depth with the incumbent and his supervisor and confirmation arrived at with the status of his position.
I would add as a footnote that there is and should be nothing within the organisation that would prevent the worker in applying or being assessed for any promotional roles within the hospital within the future for which he may be deemed appropriately suitable. The hospital should further be encouraged to enter meaningful discussions with the employee with regard to the level of training and development that he could undertake to place himself in a better position for future career development".
(The worker was named in the Rights Commissioner's recommendation).
On the 26th May, 2005 the Union appealed the recommendation to the Labour Court. The Court heard the appeal on the 20th September, 2005.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The claimant sought to have his post regraded under the agreed Job Evaluation scheme and forwarded his application to Management who in turn sent it to the Job Evaluation team. Management should have highlighted any difficulty it had with the application form at that stage.
2. The hospital nominated an independent management consultant to assist in the process using the agreed formula to assess the post. The Job Evaluation team conducted a thorough review of the role and function of Grade IV Officer in Internal Audit and recommended the post should be upgraded provided it would be fully developed. Management has made no effort to develop the role.
3. The Union wrote to a member of the Job Evaluation team seeking clarification on the recommendation. The reply clearly outlined that the recommendation of the Job Evaluation team would be agreed by both parties. They believed that Management and the Union would agree the development of the position to ensure it was upgraded.
4. Management has prevented the claimant from having his post upgraded and he has lost a considerable amount of money in the five years since the request was made in 2000.
EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The form submitted by the claimant for Job Evaluation was not countersigned by a member of Management. His evaluation was processed without his immediate supervisor countersigning it, thus denying the hospital the opportunity to confirm/challenge the duties that were listed. This in effect means that the premise on which the Job Evaluation was conducted was unsound and did not allow for the balance that the evaluation process requires.
2. The actual wording of the Job Evaluation report is conditional on developments in the claimant's post. The hospital has no plans or intention to develop the claimant's post. The hospital does not believe that it is appropriate or in the best interests of the Internal Audit Department to adjust the role of the current Grade IV post. Management does not agree to do so and therefore, this negates any perceived right that the claimant has to an upgrade arising from the 2001 Job Evaluation.
3. The purpose of Job Evaluation is to capture the current "size" of a job and determine the appropriate grade. Making a recommendation as to the development of a post is beyond the scope of the process.
4. The claimant's submission to the Job Evaluation team is identical to the one upon which the previous holder of the post successfully obtained a Grade IV upgrade. Management fails to see how this could justify an upgrade to Grade V four years later.
DECISION:
The dispute arose over the non-implementation of an Evaluators Report carried out in 2000 to evaluate a number of positions within the Hospital including the Internal Audit position graded as Grade IV. The Report found as follows:
"Internal Audit is a very important function in a large multi-faceted hospital such as St James's. The Job Description indicates that the potential for this post has not yet been realised and the evaluation scheme itself accentuates this. In our view the post should be at Grade V provided the duties and responsibilities are fully developed to meet this grading. We so recommend on this basis".
The Union sought upgrading of the position to Grade V and stated that, despite the worker's constant requests to be given the appropriate training to allow the position to be developed into a Grade V position, this training had been denied. Management submitted to the Court that the Evaluators Report was based on flawed premises and consequently it did not comply with the Report's recommendations. It also highlighted the fact that this post had previously been evaluated in 1996 and was at that time regraded from Grade III to Grade IV.
Having carefully considered the matter the Court notes that the Report found that the post was correctly graded as Grade IV but recognised the potential for development of the duties and responsibilities in the post so that it could achieve a Grade V status.
The Court is of the view that Management should have addressed this aspect of the Report at the time it was published and furthermore the worker could have pursued additional skills and qualifications to achieve this goal. The parties should now get together to assess the potential for development of the Internal Audit Area and agree a programme identifying the skills and qualifications required for extra duties and responsibilities, appropriate to a Grade V position. These discussions should be completed within an eight-week period of the date of issue of this Recommendation.
The Recommendation of the Rights Commissioner is varied accordingly.
The Court so decides.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
28th September, 2005______________________
todDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Tom O'Dea, Court Secretary.