ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION

Adjudication Decision Reference: ADJ-00003519

Complaint(s)/Dispute(s) for Resolution: 

Date of Adjudication Hearing: 13/10/2016

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Michael Hayes

Procedure: 

In accordance with Section 41(4) of the Workplace Relations Act, 2015 and the abovementioned Act, 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: 

The complainant submits that she is the longest serving claims co-ordinator in the group and continues to carry out her assigned duties at grade v despite the fact that her role colleagues in other units covered by the respondent are remunerated at grade vii. She has asked that management would acknowledge the fact that she was acting out of role as far back as 2010. In 2012 at a point where she had taken up the duties of the previous incumbent grade vii risk post it was acknowledged by the respondent that “you have taken on additional grade vii duties without an acting allowance to ensure the service is maintained.” Her application for regrading under HR Circular 17/2013 was refused on the basis that the process was closed to her (technical reason being that she had not applied in first instance). An application for regularisation of the post by the general manager of the unit was made in June 2015 but was ignored. A subsequent application was made in October 2016 by the new general manager and once again the request was ignored. As can be seen the complainant has the support of senior local management both operational and clinical for the application of the rate for the job in this case and it is appropriate that concession be made with back dating to the date of circular 17/2013.

Respondent’s Submission and Presentation: 

The respondent submits that it operates various arrangements for handling legal cases in the seven sites/units under its remit (details provided). It is not accepted that grade vii is the appropriate grade in the instant case having regard to the size of the unit for which the complainant is responsible and in comparison to the level and grades deployed in similar roles in the other units in the group. The unit for which the complainant has responsibility is the smallest. Re-grading is precluded under the PSA in the absence of job evaluation in accordance with the terms of circular 17/2013. It covers grade iii-vi and would be appropriate in this case.

Decision: 

I note that the complainant has pointed out that she has been relied upon for advice by role colleagues in the larger units in the group. Furthermore I note that there is no consistency in the support elements available to the role holders or utilised by the respondent as it relates to the operational aspects of the role across the group. In other words it appears to me that the respondent has adopted a “horses for courses” approach to the role across the group. It is an important aspect of this case that the complainant assumed a vacated role in 2011 and that the role and rate applicable at that time was that of grade vii. I take the point that this is a “rate for the job” claim and in that regard I follow the Labour Court in LCR20862. In the absence of consistency on the part of the respondent (various grades and approaches across various units within the group) I take the view that the grade and rate applicable is that of the previous incumbent.

I recommend that the grade vii be granted to the complainant from 9^th of September 2016 (date of receipt of complaint).

Dated:   16/02/2017