FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : HSE WEST - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY IRISH MUNICIPAL, PUBLIC AND CIVIL TRADE UNION) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Hayes Employer Member: Ms Cryan Worker Member: Mr Nash |
1. Appeal against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation r-068331-ir-08.
BACKGROUND:
2. This dispute concerns the Employer failure to deal with the Worker's application to have his post regraded. The matter was referred to a Rights Commissioner for investigation and recommendation. On the 13th March, 2009 the Rights Commissioner issued the following Recommendation:-
- “I am shocked and appalled that an employer who is funded directly from the public purse can treat an obviously committed and dedicated worker in such a cavalier and disrespectful manner. Furthermore it is clear in the instant case that the respondent has contrived to undermine and emasculate the role and function of local management.
I recommend full concession of the claim as made with appropriate backdating to the date of claim”.
- “I am shocked and appalled that an employer who is funded directly from the public purse can treat an obviously committed and dedicated worker in such a cavalier and disrespectful manner. Furthermore it is clear in the instant case that the respondent has contrived to undermine and emasculate the role and function of local management.
3. 1.Local management has consistently supported the Worker's upgrading claim.
2.The Worker should be treated in the same manner as his colleague in Galway carrying out the same duties and responsibilities.
3.The Worker has suffered significant financial loss as a result of the Employer's actions.
EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Employer is not in a financial position to conceed this claim.
2. Concession of this claim is also precluded by the terms of various HSE Circulars.
3. Concession of this claim would be unfair to other employees who are seeking to have their posts upgraded.
DECISION:
The Court is advised that the job evaluation process within the HSE is suspended and that many staff, that wish to process job grading claims through the procedures, are affected as a result. This is a collective issue that should be addressed between the parties to agree a way forward. The Court is not a perfect or indeed suitable substitute for such an agreed process, as the outcomes will inevitably give rise to inconsistencies and unforeseen inequalities and will lack the broad overview that a job grading process seeks to provide.
Accordingly, in the interest of both the HSE and those who work in it, it is only in exceptional cases that the Court will involve itself in the grading process.
This is one such case. Here the employee, having originally been told to process his claim through the job grading scheme, was subsequently told that he that he is outside the scope of the job-grading scheme. However he has been given no alternative process through which he can process his claim for regrading. In the meantime several years have passed and his employer has failed to respond in any meaningful way to his predicament.
The Court considers that this is an unacceptable way to treat an employee. It is unacceptable that an employee can be outside all formal job grading systems and have no means of processing a grievance regarding the level at which his job should be graded.
On the other hand the Court is reluctant to uphold the Rights Commissioner’s recommendation in this case for the reasons set out above.
Accordingly the Court therefore decides that the HSE shall within 4 weeks of the date of this decision, identify a grading process through which this job can be assessed/evaluated. The identified assessment/evaluation process should then be effected within a further period of 8 weeks and a final result issued to the claimant. Implementation of that outcome is a matter to be dealt with between the parties in accordance with existing agreements and the circumstances prevailing at that time.
Failing strict compliance with the overall timescale and process set out herein the Court upholds the Rights Commissioner recommendation and rejects the appeal.
The Court so decides.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Brendan Hayes
24th March, 2011______________________
JMcCDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Jonathan McCabe, Court Secretary.