ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION
Adjudication Decision Reference: ADJ-00000402
Complaint(s)/Dispute(s) for Resolution:
Act | Complaint/Dispute Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1946 | CA-00000595-001 | 03/11/2015 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 03/03/2016
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Ray Flaherty
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 41(4) of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 following the referral of the complaint(s)/dispute(s) to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaint(s)/dispute(s) and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaint(s)/dispute(s).
Complainant’s Submission and Presentation:
In May 2012 I was asked by my then line manager to apply for the Senior Manger's position within his office. I did so, was the only applicant and the competition was never completed. I was expected to perform the duties of the position without the remuneration or grade of the previous permanent substantive post holder. I made several representations to have my grade regularised but was continually dissuaded to follow up as there was a different mechanism that would resolve my issue e.g. HRA Regularisation and RDPI reconfiguration. I have attempted to use the Respondent’s Grievance Policy to have the issue resolved. The organisation has failed to meet its own guidelines in dealing with my grievance and has been obstructive in providing clarity and information to substantiate elements of my claim. The orgainsation made an agreement to resolve the matter and required that I immediately withdraw my initial complaint to the rights commissioner less than 24 hours before the hearing in August 2015, has not implemented the agreement and now intends to alter the terms. In addition in perusing a legitimate claim under the organisations grievance procedure I have been threatened with reputational damage and requested that I go through additional processes. I now wish to seek a third party adjudication on my claim of a higher grade and remunerated accordingly back dated. |
The Complainant made submission in support of his claims for regrading to General Manager, effective May 2012, based on the following substantive issues:
The [expectation and] substantive work he had been doing since 2012.
The implied organisational acknowledgement of his position at a higher grade.
The procedurally deficit and inequitable treatment in making the claim.
Parity of pay with peers in other regional offices.
In support of his claim, the Complainant set out a detailed chronology of events from February 2012 through to December 2015. This chronology was supported by a significant volume of documentary evidence.
In summing up his claim, the Complainant requested that he be made a permanent General Manager, that he be remunerated accordingly, backdated to May 2012 and that he be compensated accordingly for the hardship, undue stress and anxiety that this protracted process had caused to him and his family.
He contended that his claim is indistinguishable from any other pay related claim because:
he commenced a recruitment process,
the organisation expected him to take on additional duties and
other arms of the organisation having acknowledged that he operates at General Manager level.
Respondent’s Submission and Presentation:
The Respondent in their submission in response to the Complainant's claim made the following representation:
The Complainant made an application seeking the regularisation of his acting post. A Regional Director for the Respondent found that the Complainant did not meet the required criteria in this regard.
The Complainant utilised the Grievance Procedures with negative determinations issuing at both Stage I and Stage 2. The Complainant subsequently exercised his entitlement to a final appeal under Stage 3 of the procedures which he made to the National Director of Human Resources.
The National Director of Human Resources issued his determination dated 22 July 2015. (Decision - 016/2015)
The Respondent claims that the (above) decision of the National Director of Human Resources was implemented in full. The Complainant's temporary appointment as General Manager was implemented with effect from 1 October 2013. It is contended that it had already been confirmed that there was no basis for an increment date of 1 February 2014, as any previous increment date which the Complainant might have had would have been relapsed and his new appointment as per the decision of the National Director of Human Resources was implemented in accordance with the provisions of the HR Circular 17/2013 with the incremental date being 1 October 2014.
In relation to the Complainant's unsubstantiated allegation of reputational damage, the Respondent noted the seriousness of the allegations and indicated that it was awaiting receipt of the Complainant's formal complaint in this regard which would then be processed in accordance with the relevant policies.
In concluding, the Respondent's representative contended that the Complainant was treated no less favourably than those other employees who have been appointed following open competitions including those qualifying and confirmed in a position under the provision of the HR Circular 17/2013.
Decision:
Section 41(4) of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint(s)/dispute(s) in accordance with the relevant redress provisions under Schedule 6 of that Act.
Issues for Decision:
The issue for consideration related to the validity of the grievance being submitted by the Respondent.
Legislation involved and requirements of legislation:
This dispute was raised under the Industrial Relations Act (1946/1969) and fell to be considered as an IR/HR matter. Consequently, no legislation was referred to in this this regard.
Decision:
Having carefully considered all of the evidence adduced, it is clear that the Complainant's effort to have his grievance addressed with regard to his grade became, for him, a long and tortuous process. However, it is clear that the Complainant accepted his grievance had finally been addressed when the National Director of Human Resources issued his formal decision (Decision no. 016/2015) on 22 July 2015.
The full text of the decision which is titled "Decision for Approval – As per [Respondent] Guidance Document of the management of doing temporary appointments –HR Circular 17/2013" is as follows:
"I authorise the appointment of [the Complainant] to the position of Temporary General Manager with effect from 1 October 2013. [The Complainant] is to be remunerated on the 6th point of the General Manager pay scale and to the maximum of the General Manager pay scale with effect from February 2014. February is [the Complainant's] increment date as per his substantive grade. [The Complainant's] substantive grade is Grade 8."
During the Hearing, the Respondent contended that this decision had been implemented in full. The evidence contained in the documentation, presented at the Hearing by both parties, clearly demonstrates that this is not the case.
While the first element of the determination (i.e. elevation of the Complainant to Point 6 of the General Manager pay scale with effect from 1 October 2013) was implemented correctly, the second element (i.e. elevation of the complainant to the maximum of the General Manager pay scale) was implemented with an effective date of 1 October 2014, rather than from February 2014 as stipulated in the decision.
As the above decision (Decision - 016/2015) is clearly set out in the context of the HR Circular 17/2013, I can find no reasonable grounds as to why this decision was not implemented in full. I was not provided with any objective or reasonable argument, or evidence, which might justify the Respondent's application of an effective date of 1 October 2014, rather than the date clearly set out in the decision, when elevating the Complainant's salary to the maximum point of the General Manager pay scale.
Consequently, having carefully considered all the evidence, I find in the Complainant's favour and order that his elevation to the maximum of the General Manager pay scale be implemented with effect from 1 February 2014, with full retrospection being applied to that date.
I further find that it would be inappropriate to apply any restrictions or qualifications to the terms of Decision - 016/2015, which are not specifically set down within that decision.
Dated: 13 May 2016