FULL RECOMMENDATION
SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : QUALITY AND QUALIFICATIONS IRELAND (QQI) (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - A WORKER DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Haugh Employer Member: Ms Cryan Worker Member: Mr Shanahan |
1. Appeal of Adjudication Officer Recommendation.
BACKGROUND:
2. The dispute concerns a claim by the Worker.This dispute was referred to an Adjudication Officer for investigation and recommendation. On the 16th June, 2016 the Adjudication Officer issued the following Recommendation:-
- "I recommend that sanction be immediately sought from the parent department, and should be granted, even on an exceptional basis for this employment for the regrading necessary to do so, to remedy the serious injustice to the claimant and to implement this recommendation.
As noted above the claimant said she had 'effectively been demoted, that her contract of employment has been broken and that her treatment has been humiliating'.
I agree with this description of her treatment and so I further recommend that she be paid €10,000 compensation for the breach of her rights in the matter and the general unfairness of the treatment to which she has been subjected. This payment is for the breach of her rights and is not in the nature of pay, and therefore should not be subject to tax or other state deductions. "
On the 25th July, 2016 the Employer appealed the Adjudication Officer's Recommendation to the Labour Court in accordance with Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 15th September, 2016.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The appointment represented a significant increase in duties and responsibilities as compared with the worker's previous role.
2. The worker's appointment was viewed as a promotion by all internally and externally.
3. The worker has been left in an extraordinary position where she has effectively been demoted and her responsibilities removed from her damaging what was up until then an extremely successful 22 year career.
EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The appointment of the claimant to the position of Head of Quality Assurance Services in 2012 did not include any additional remuneration or promotion, the claimant has always remained at the same grade.
2. The Employer does not have the authority to sanction a post beyond what they have been instructed to do by the Department.
3. In the interests of good industrial relations the Employer must comply with the collective agreement made in March 2015.
DECISION:
Background to the Dispute
As is the normal practice for this Court, the worker is referred to in the within recommendation as the Complainant and her employer, Quality and Qualifications Ireland (“QQI”), is referred to as the Respondent.
The Respondent organisation was established pursuant to the Qualifications and Quality Assurance (Education and Training) Act 2012. Prior to her transfer to QQI, the Complainant had a combined 22 years’ service with a number of predecessor organisations, including NCEA and HETAC. Following the establishment of the Respondent in late June 2012, and on the conclusion of a competitive assessment and interview process, the Complainant was appointed to the position of Head of Quality Assurance Services (Designate). In that capacity, she was a member of the Respondent’s senior management team. This, objectively considered, represented a promotion for the Complainant and an increase in the level of responsibility that she assumed. However, these changes were not reflected in any concomitant change in her official grade or in her remuneration at the time due to the operation of the Government’s moratorium on recruitment and promotion in the public service.
The parties' dispute concerns the alleged demotion of the Complainant arising from the manner in which the Respondent chose to implement an earlier Recommendation of this Court (LCR 20854) arising from a trade dispute between SIPTU and the Respondent. The Respondent proposed a new organisational structure in mid-2015 which the Complainant contends had significant negative consequences for her professionally and personally. She referred a complaint to an Adjudication Officer who found that the reorganisation in question had given rise to “a very serious breach of the claimant’s employment rights”. He recommended that she had “the right to be restored to her position without delay” and be paid €10,000.00 in compensation.
The Court’s Recommendation
The Respondent appealed to this Court from the Adjudication Officer’s recommendation. Its appeal focuses principally on the quantum of the compensation awarded to the Complainant at first instance. In this regard, the Court upholds the Adjudication Officer’s recommendation. The Court notes that the Respondent is, however, very supportive of the Complainant’s view with regard to the appropriateness of regrading her position to reflect the actual level at which she is operating within the Respondent organisation. The Court recommends that the Respondent should continue to engage with the Department of Education and Skills with a view to achieving approval for an outcome that is favourable to the Complainant.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Alan Haugh
CO'R______________________
29th September, 2016Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Clodagh O'Reilly, Court Secretary.