ADJUDICATION OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00007906

Claim:

Date of Adjudication Hearing: 27th July 2017

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Seán Reilly                                                

Procedure:

In accordance with Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969 and following the referral of the dispute to me by the Director General, I inquired into the dispute and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the dispute. 

Background:

SIPTU were in dispute with the Employer in relation to the Complainant’s pay grade.

Summary of Trade Union Case:

SIPTU said that the Complainant has been carrying out the duties of Clerical Grade 4 post (Medical Secretary) since April and is seeking to be paid the rate of the job.

SIPTU said that currently the Complainant is classed as support staff and is being paid €30,830.00c per annum (€1,181 per fortnight), which is the top point of the 9 point Laundry Attendant Pay Scale.   They said the Complainant works 39 hours per week and is based at a named location.   SIPTU said the Complainant holds a contract of employment for the initial position in the Employer’s Laundry Service, but not for her current post.

SIPTU said the Complainant commenced employment with the Employer in 2010 as a Laundry Attendant and after a short period was made permanent in that role.

In 2012 the Complainant was made aware of a vacant post a Clerical Grade 4, which came about from the retirement of the holder of that post and she took up the role in late April of that year.   She was not issued with a new contract for this post and she did not receive any increase in pay.

SIPTU said that at that time there was a moratorium of recruitment/promotion in the employment, but there was also pressure to fill posts and in this case management found a means to provide the necessary cover.   Once it became apparent that she was to be retained in this role, the Complainant began to query the conditions and pay rate.   Initially she raised this with her named Manager and found the Manager to be sympathetic and supportive to her case.   However, despite this, no material improvement in her conditions of employment took place.

The Complainant than took this up with SIPTU and a letter was sent from SIPTU to the named HR Manager on 13^th January 2017 seeking to have the matter addressed.   The Manager responded but could not facilitate to request/claim.   SIPTU again wrote to the Employer on 21^st March 2017, seeking to know the basis for the outright rejection of the claim, and as there was no response and given this to be the case, the matter was referred to the WRC on 30^th March 2017.  

At the same time SIPTU informed management of their availability to engage further at local level with a view to reaching agreement.   SIPTU said that some telephone discussions then took place with management and it became evident that the Complainant’s case was viewed positively and that management were very pleased with her work and her ability to carry out all aspects of the role. However, despite this there no agreement was reached.

SIPTU said they understand that Clerical Grade 3 contract has been offered to the Complainant, but this was not in line with the pay enjoyed by colleagues carrying out the same work.

SIPTU said they have not been provided with any basis for the decision by management to refuse to apply the rate for the job to the Complainant. SIPTU said that who work as medical secretaries are in receipt of Clerical Grade 4 salary and conditions of employment.   SIPTU said the Complainant has now spent 5 years as a Medical Secretary and that this needs to be reflected in her pay/salary rate.

SIPTU said that the Complainant’s current annual salary in €31,830, while her colleagues doing the same work and with similar service (Point 10) are receiving an annual salary of €41,209.

SIPTU said that they can see no justification for the situation the Complainant finds herself in.   She has been co-operative with the Employer during a time when they needed such co-operation and overall it is accepted that she has and continues to be an asset to the Employer.  

SIPTU said that therefore the Complainant should have her position acknowledged by the Employer, by them issuing her with a contract for the Grade 4 Clerical post she holds - and SIPTU said that therefore they are seeking a decision that will bring this about, retrospective to the date she commenced in in this post on 30^th April 2012.

SIPTU and the Complainant sought a favourable recommendation.

Summary of Employer’s Case:

The Employer said the facts in this case are not in dispute and the history is as described by SIPTU in their submissions.

The Employer said the Complainant performs the job well and that management are more than happy with her and her work.

The Business Manager said that the Complainant is an essential part of the team and the service provided.

The Employer said that unfortunately the Complainant missed the time frame for Regularisation of Acting Up and she was outside the time limits for inclusion in that Regularisation.   The Employer said that is was (only) for this reason that they were unable to concede to the claim made by the Complainant.

For these reasons and due to facts of the case the Respondent sought that their position be upheld and that the claim be rejected.

Findings, Conclusions and Recommendation:

Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1969 requires that I make a recommendation setting forth my opinion on the merits of the dispute.

I have carefully considered the evidence and the submissions made and I have concluded as follows.

I note that it is undisputed that the Complainant is performing the full functions of a Grade IV administration staff member.  

Accordingly I see considerable merit in the claim and it is upheld by me.

Based on the foregoing I now recommend as a full and final settlement of the matter that the Employer acknowledge the redeployment of the Complainant to a Grade IV post with effect from a very long period ago at this stage.

Accordingly, the Complainant should be appointed to the 7^th point of the Grade IV Salary Scale from the current date with the benefit of assimilation to the Scale in accordance with established practice.

For the avoidance of doubt I wish to confirm that this recommendation is particular to the unique facts and circumstances of the instant case and that it cannot and will not be used or quoted by either party or any other party in any other case.

I so recommend.

Dated: 17^th August 2017

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Seán Reilly

Key Words:   Pay Grade